Physics and imaging in radiation oncology · 2026
Prospective blinded clinical evaluation of a fully automated workflow for prostate radiotherapy.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Neugebauer David, Bolten Jan-Hendrik, Lau Hoi H, Mende Stephan, Rackwitz Tilmann, Held Thomas, Grott Christoph, Rademacher Johanna, Weykamp Fabian, Meixner Eva, Hoegen-Sassmannshausen Philipp, Debus Jürgen, Klüter Sebastian, Liermann Jakob
Аннотация
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Fully automated workflows integrating deep learning-based segmentation and treatment planning have shown promising results in research settings but require prospective evaluation under routine clinical conditions. This study assessed the clinical usability of a fully automated workflow for prostate radiotherapy compared with the conventional clinical workflow.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-two consecutively treated patients undergoing prostate radiotherapy were included. For each patient, treatment planning was first performed according to the conventional workflow, followed by execution of a fully automated workflow combining deep learning-based segmentation and planning models within a commercial treatment planning system. Plans and structure sets were evaluated in a blinded, standardized manner by board-certified radiation oncologists and rated as "good", "acceptable", or "unacceptable". The preferred plan was selected for treatment. Processing times were recorded.
RESULTS: Clinically acceptable results were achieved in 86% of fully automated cases compared with 95% in the conventional workflow. Conventional plans were rated more frequently as "good" (17/22 vs 12/22), mainly due to differences in target delineation. Fully automated clinical target volumes were consistently smaller (median 54.2 cm3 vs 68.3 cm3; p < 0.001). The fully automated workflow required a median of 9 min (range 8-10) compared with 87 min (range 70-130) for the conventional workflow.
CONCLUSIONS: A fully automated workflow for prostate radiotherapy substantially reduces workload and processing time while achieving a high rate of clinical acceptability. Implementation as a draft-first approach with mandatory physician review appears feasible, although refinement of automated target delineation is warranted.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-two consecutively treated patients undergoing prostate radiotherapy were included. For each patient, treatment planning was first performed according to the conventional workflow, followed by execution of a fully automated workflow combining deep learning-based segmentation and planning models within a commercial treatment planning system. Plans and structure sets were evaluated in a blinded, standardized manner by board-certified radiation oncologists and rated as "good", "acceptable", or "unacceptable". The preferred plan was selected for treatment. Processing times were recorded.
RESULTS: Clinically acceptable results were achieved in 86% of fully automated cases compared with 95% in the conventional workflow. Conventional plans were rated more frequently as "good" (17/22 vs 12/22), mainly due to differences in target delineation. Fully automated clinical target volumes were consistently smaller (median 54.2 cm3 vs 68.3 cm3; p < 0.001). The fully automated workflow required a median of 9 min (range 8-10) compared with 87 min (range 70-130) for the conventional workflow.
CONCLUSIONS: A fully automated workflow for prostate radiotherapy substantially reduces workload and processing time while achieving a high rate of clinical acceptability. Implementation as a draft-first approach with mandatory physician review appears feasible, although refinement of automated target delineation is warranted.