We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
Adaptive radiotherapy (ART) is commonly used to mitigate effects of anatomical change during head and neck (H&N) radiotherapy. The process of identifying patients for ART can be subjective and resource-intensive. This feasibility project aims to design and validate a pipeline to automate the process and use it to assess the current clinical pathway for H&N treatments.
Methods:
The pipeline analysed patients’ on-set cone-beam CT (CBCT) scans to identify inter-fractional anatomical changes. CBCTs were converted into synthetic CTs, contours were automatically generated, and the original plan was recomputed. Each synthetic CT was evaluated against a set of dosimetric goals, with failed goals causing an ART recommendation.
To validate pipeline performance, a ‘gold standard’ was synthesised by recomputing patients’ original plans on a rescan-CT acquired during treatment and identifying failed clinical goals. The pipeline sensitivity and specificity compared to this ‘gold standard’ were calculated for 12 ART patients. The pipeline was then run on a cohort of 12 ART and 14 non-ART patients, and its sensitivity and specificity were instead calculated against the clinical decision made.
Results:
The pipeline showed good agreement with the synthesised ‘gold standard’ with an optimum sensitivity of 0·83 and specificity of 0·67. When run over a cohort containing both ART and non-ART patients and assessed against the subjective clinical decision made, the pipeline showed no predictive power (sensitivity: 0·58, specificity: 0·47).
Conclusions:
Good agreement with the ‘gold standard’ gives confidence in pipeline performance and disagreement with clinical decisions implies implementation could help standardise the current clinical pathway.
Recommend this
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this to your organisation's collection.