ArticlePhysical and engineering sciences in medicine2026
Practical deep learning solutions for prostate cancer segmentation and implementation in radiotherapy planning.
Article in Physical and engineering sciences in medicine, 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Accurate segmentation of the prostate and surrounding structures is crucial in radiotherapy planning to ensure effective treatment delivery while minimising radiation exposure to nearby tissues. However, existing deep learning (DL) segmentation studies often exclude clinically important structures such as the penile bulb (PB) and seminal vesicles (SV), rely heavily on large proprietary datasets that are difficult to acquire in clinical settings, and lack direct comparisons with traditional atlas-based methods. To address these gaps, this study provides practical insights for hospitals considering the implementation of DL systems by evaluating 2D U-Net models across six structured experiments, including one experiment comparing a 3D U-Net model. Notably, this is the first study to utilises publicly available prostate CT data in DL training and integrates public and private datasets to improve model robustness for prostate and adjacent anatomical structures. The inclusion of underrepresented structures, such as PB and SV, enhances the clinical applicability of the models. Our results demonstrated that moderate-sized datasets, ranging from 60 to approximately 300 in our study, can achieve sub-millimetre Mean Distance Agreement (MDA) for key organs at risk like the bladder (0.60 mm) and rectum (0.93 mm), reducing reliance on large-scale annotated data. Models trained on routine clinical contours performed well without extensive manual refinement, demonstrating that existing clinical data can be leveraged for model training. In comparisons with four commercial atlas-based tools, the 2D U-Net models achieved superior accuracy for key anatomical structures, including the prostate, bladder, and SV, with our deep learning model achieving an MDA of 1.28 mm for the prostate compared to the 1.4-2.5 mm range of the atlas tools. Although 3D models provided improved spatial context for small structures such as SV, 2D models proved to be a practical alternative due to lower computational demands, making them suitable for resource-limited clinical settings.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42834307What 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.