ArticleJournal of applied clinical medical physics2026
End-to-end deep learning pipeline for automated IMRT planning in lymphoma: Feasibility and limitations.
Article in Journal of applied clinical medical physics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundIntensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) is widely used for lymphoma because a multileaf collimator (MLC) can sculpt dose around irregular targets. Planning, however, is time-consuming and difficult to standardize. Fluence map prediction (FMP) using deep learning (DL) could potentially be used to automate planning, but it has not been evaluated in full-body lymphoma, where prescriptions, organ-at-risk (OAR) sets, and anatomical presentations vary substantially. Here, we evaluate multiple DL configurations to determine whether they can be adapted to lymphoma and generate IMRT plans that are deliverable in a clinical treatment planning system (TPS). PURPOSE: To investigate the feasibility and limitations of DL-based dose and fluence prediction methods in the heterogeneous setting of lymphoma.
methodsA single-institution lymphoma cohort (571 patients, 619 plans) was replanned from clinical volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) to a consistent 15-field IMRT reference using the Eclipse Scripting API (ESAPI), yielding 9285 beam-level pairs. We implemented a two-stage DL pipeline that first predicts beam-wise dose from CT and planning target volume (PTV), then maps dose to fluence, and finally computes the corresponding dose in the TPS after leaf sequencing. We evaluated several architectural and training variants, from replication-focused models to configurations with a clinical loss based on dose-volume histogram (DVH) aimed at moving beyond simple plan replication. For each configuration, we analysed how these choices influenced predicted dose realism and the quality of the resulting plans.
resultsIn Stage 1 (dose prediction), replication-focused DL models were numerically inferior to the IMRT and VMAT references, while DVH-driven variants yielded superior target DVHs. After fluence mapping and TPS sequencing, all configurations produced machine-deliverable IMRT plans but with lower target coverage and higher hot spots than the references; fluence was largely preserved by MLC sequencing, indicating that current limitations mainly stem from the predicted dose distributions and the learned dose-to-fluence mapping.
conclusionsDL-based dose and fluence prediction can generate fast, machine-deliverable IMRT plans for heterogeneous lymphoma that lie in the clinical ballpark, but they remain dosimetrically inferior to manual IMRT and VMAT, highlighting the current limitations of these methods for automated planning in this setting.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.