Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42234324›Full record

ArticleRadiological physics and technology2026

Comparison of DVH-based machine learning and 3D convolutional neural network approaches for automated VMAT planning in head and neck cancer.

Takuya Nakamura, Hirofumi Yamasaki, Tomohiko Kawachino, Yutaro Tasaki, Yuto Kimura, Ryo Toya

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Radiological physics and technology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Takuya NakamuraDivision of Radiological Technology Department of Medical Technology, Nagasaki University Hospital, 1-7-1 Sakamoto, Nagasaki, 852-8501, Japan. t-nakamura@nagasaki-u.ac.jp.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0002-4036-061X
Hirofumi YamasakiDivision of Radiological Technology Department of Medical Technology, Nagasaki University Hospital, 1-7-1 Sakamoto, Nagasaki, 852-8501, Japan.
Tomohiko KawachinoDivision of Radiological Technology Department of Medical Technology, Nagasaki University Hospital, 1-7-1 Sakamoto, Nagasaki, 852-8501, Japan.
Yutaro TasakiDepartment of Radiology, Nagasaki University Hospital, 1-7-1 Sakamoto, Nagasaki, 852-8501, Japan.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8097-6094
Yuto KimuraDepartment of Research and Development, AiRato Inc.Aobayama Garage, Material Innovation Center, Tohoku University, 468-1 Aoba, Aramaki, Aoba-Ku, Sendai, 980-8572, Japan.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0002-6070-1741
Ryo ToyaDepartment of Radiological Sciences, Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences, Nagasaki University, 1-7-1 Sakamoto, Nagasaki, 852-8501, Japan.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9764-5718

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This study compared a dose-volume histogram-based machine learning (ML) approach with a three-dimensional dose distribution-based convolutional neural network (CNN) approach for volumetric-modulated arc therapy planning in head and neck cancer (HNC). Sixty-five patients who underwent whole-neck radiotherapy were retrospectively analyzed; 55 cases were used for model training and 10 for independent testing. Treatment plans generated by the CNN-based framework and a commercial ML-based planning system (RapidPlan) were evaluated using dose-volume indices (DVIs) and blinded qualitative scoring. In the DVI analysis, the ML-based plans achieved significantly higher target coverage than both the CNN-based and clinical plans. In contrast, the CNN-based plans maintained a mean error of less than 2% relative to the clinical plans, indicating close agreement with the clinical standard. No statistically significant differences in organs-at-risk dose metrics were observed among the three approaches. In the blinded qualitative evaluation, mean scores were 4.7 ± 0.56, 4.0 ± 1.07, and 2.7 ± 0.90 for the clinical, CNN-based, and ML-based plans, respectively, with the ML-based plans receiving significantly lower scores. These findings indicate that differences in prediction methodology and optimization strategy influence final plan quality, particularly with respect to spatial dose characteristics. Three-dimensional dose distribution-based prediction may provide clinical advantages for automated radiotherapy planning in HNC.

Indexed as

Convolutional Neural NetworksHead and Neck NeoplasmsMachine LearningRadiotherapy, Intensity-ModulatedRadiotherapy Planning, Computer-AssistedAutomationHumansRadiotherapy DosageRetrospective StudiesAutomated treatment planningConvolutional neural networkHead and neck cancerKnowledge-based planningMachine learningVolumetric-modulated arc therapy

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.