Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42882812›Full record

ReviewCancers2026

Digital 3D Technology in Pediatric Surgical Oncology: An Expert White Paper.

Nick de Groot, Pamela Lustig, Sadie Lynn Love, Chris Goode, Joseph Fusco, Andrew Davidoff, Alida van der Steeg, Lucas Krauel, Zachary Abramson, Matthijs Fitski

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Cancers, 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

10 authors.

Nick de GrootPrincess Máxima Center for Pediatric Oncology, 3584 CS Utrecht, The Netherlands.ORCID 0009-0000-6713-2591
Pamela Lustig3D Unit (3D4H), SJD Barcelona Children's Hospital, 08950 Barcelona, Spain.
Sadie Lynn LoveDepartment of Radiology, St Jude Children's Research Hospital, Memphis, TN 38105, USA.
Chris GoodeDepartment of Radiology, St Jude Children's Research Hospital, Memphis, TN 38105, USA.
Joseph FuscoDepartment of Pediatric Surgery, Monroe Carell Jr. Children's Hospital at Vanderbilt, Nashville, TN 37232, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-6988-7904
Andrew DavidoffDepartment of Surgery, St. Jude Children's Research Hospital, Memphis, TN 38105, USA.
Alida van der SteegPrincess Máxima Center for Pediatric Oncology, 3584 CS Utrecht, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-0168-7513
Lucas KrauelPediatric Surgical Oncology Unit, Department of Pediatric Surgery, PCCB-SJD Barcelona Children's Hospital, 08950 Barcelona, Spain.ORCID 0000-0002-0254-4488
Zachary AbramsonDepartment of Radiology, St Jude Children's Research Hospital, Memphis, TN 38105, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-7875-1187
Matthijs FitskiPrincess Máxima Center for Pediatric Oncology, 3584 CS Utrecht, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-0515-7691

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Digital three-dimensional (3D) visualization is an evolving field that is being introduced into pediatric surgical oncology, where it addresses challenges related to complex anatomy and difficulties accurately defining surgical margins. This paper provides an overview of digital 3D modeling in pediatric surgical oncology and explores ways to further advance this field. Digital 3D models may improve various aspects of surgery, such as preoperative planning, intraoperative guidance, patient education, and surgical training. Traditionally, 3D models are manually or semi-automatically segmented. More recently, artificial intelligence (AI) can automatically segment pediatric solid tumors. For preoperative planning, 3D models improve anatomic understanding and help multidisciplinary communication. During surgery, these models can assist the surgeon in accurately localizing tumors and determining resection margins in preclinical research settings. In patient education, 3D models present an opportunity to improve patient understanding of disease, therapy, and surgical risks. Lastly, digital 3D models are used in surgical training, particularly for challenging cases. Although digital 3D technologies are evaluated using technical performance metrics, these measures do not necessarily result in improved clinical outcomes. Consequently, evidence demonstrating improved surgical outcomes remains limited, also due to the small patient cohorts. Several challenges continue to hinder clinical translation, including image quality and standardization, segmentation complexity, organ deformability during surgery, and insufficient clinical validation. Addressing these limitations will require progress in four key areas: AI integration, multicenter validation, the development of centralized infrastructures including digital twins, and scalable implementation strategies that support widespread clinical adoption.

Indexed as

patient education and simulationpediatric surgical oncologypreoperative planningsurgical navigationthree-dimensional models

Identifiers

PMID42882812
PMCPMC13663964

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.