ArticleJournal of medical physics
Automated Radiotherapy Planning for Head-and-neck Cancer: Multi-institutional Development, Validation, and Clinical Implementation of Monaco Scripting.
Article in Journal of medical physics. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: The purpose of this study was to develop, validate, and clinically implement a standardized automated treatment planning framework using Monaco scripting and to evaluate its dosimetric performance, consistency, and organ-at-risk (OAR) sparing compared with conventional manual planning for head-and-neck cancer (HNC) across a multi-institutional network. Materials and Methods: A Pareto-based multi-criteria optimization template was iteratively developed, validated on >300 retrospective cases, and implemented across 14 centers. Forty-seven HNC patients were replanned using clinically approved plan (CA), AutoPlan (AP), and AutoPlan iteration (API) approaches and categorized into single-target ( Results: Automated workflows demonstrated superior consistency and OAR sparing compared with CA plans. AP achieved the highest overall scorecard performance, while API consistently produced the most stable dose distributions with lower variability and weaker correlations between PTV_High coverage and OAR doses. CA plans exhibited the widest dose variability and stronger OAR dose dependence. Clinically, the automated scripts achieved >70% automation and have been used in over 850 patients with minimal manual intervention. Conclusion: Automated Monaco scripting significantly improves plan quality, consistency, and OAR sparing in HNC radiotherapy, supporting routine clinical adoption - particularly of iterative API workflows - for standardized multi-center practice.
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.