Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38550365›Full record

ReviewAdvances in radiation oncology2024

Review of Deep Learning Based Autosegmentation for Clinical Target Volume: Current Status and Future Directions.

Thomas Matoska, Mira Patel, Hefei Liu, Sushil Beriwal

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Advances in radiation oncology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing 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

23 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

4 authors.

Thomas MatoskaDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, Wisconsin.
Mira PatelDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, Wisconsin.
Hefei LiuDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Sushil BeriwalVarian Medical System Inc, Palo Alto, California.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose: Manual contour work for radiation treatment planning takes significant time to ensure volumes are accurately delineated. The use of artificial intelligence with deep learning based autosegmentation (DLAS) models has made itself known in recent years to alleviate this workload. It is used for organs at risk contouring with significant consistency in performance and time saving. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the performance of present published data for DLAS of clinical target volume (CTV) contours, identify areas of improvement, and discuss future directions. Methods and Materials: A literature review was performed by using the key words "deep learning" AND ("segmentation" or "delineation") AND "clinical target volume" in an indexed search into PubMed. A total of 154 articles based on the search criteria were reviewed. The review considered the DLAS model used, disease site, targets contoured, guidelines used, and the overall performance. Results: Of the 53 articles investigating DLAS of CTV, only 6 were published before 2020. Publications have increased in recent years, with 46 articles published between 2020 and 2023. The cervix (n = 19) and the prostate (n = 12) were studied most frequently. Most studies (n = 43) involved a single institution. Median sample size was 130 patients (range, 5-1052). The most common metrics used to measure DLAS performance were Dice similarity coefficient followed by Hausdorff distance. Dosimetric performance was seldom reported (n = 11). There was also variability in specific guidelines used (Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG), European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology (ESTRO), and others). DLAS models had good overall performance for contouring CTV volumes for multiple disease sites, with most studies showing Dice similarity coefficient values >0.7. DLAS models also delineated CTV volumes faster compared with manual contouring. However, some DLAS model contours still required at least minor edits, and future studies investigating DLAS of CTV volumes require improvement. Conclusions: DLAS demonstrates capability of completing CTV contour plans with increased efficiency and accuracy. However, most models are developed and validated by single institutions using guidelines followed by the developing institutions. Publications about DLAS of the CTV have increased in recent years. Future studies and DLAS models need to include larger data sets with different patient demographics, disease stages, validation in multi-institutional settings, and inclusion of dosimetric performance.

Identifiers

PMID38550365
PMCPMC10966174

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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 Socratic graph.