↓ Skip to main content

An image‐guided radiotherapy decision support framework incorporating a Bayesian network and visualization tool

Overview of attention for article published in Medical Physics, June 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
48 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
An image‐guided radiotherapy decision support framework incorporating a Bayesian network and visualization tool
Published in
Medical Physics, June 2018
DOI 10.1002/mp.12979
Pubmed ID
Authors

Catriona Hargrave, Timothy Deegan, Tomasz Bednarz, Michael Poulsen, Fiona Harden, Kerrie Mengersen

Abstract

To describe a Bayesian network (BN) and complementary visualization tool, that aim to support decision-making during online cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT)-based image guide radiotherapy (IGRT) for prostate cancer patients. The BN was created to represent relationships between observed prostate, proximal seminal vesicle (PSV), bladder and rectum volume variations, an image feature alignment score (FASTV_OAR ), delivered dose and treatment plan compliance (TPC). Variables influencing tumor volume (TV) targeting accuracy such as intra-fraction motion, and contouring and couch shift errors were also represented. A score of overall TPC (FASglobal ) and factors such as image quality were used to inform the BN output node, providing advice about proceeding with treatment. The BN was quantified using conditional probabilities generated from published studies, FASTV_OAR/global modelling and a survey of IGRT decision-making practices. A new IGRT visualization tool (IGRTREV ), in the form of Mollweide projection plots, was developed to provide a global summary of residual errors after online CBCT-planning CT registration. Sensitivity and scenario analyses were undertaken to evaluate the performance of the BN and the relative influence of the network variables on TPC and the decision to proceed with treatment. The IGRTREV plots were evaluated in conjunction with the BN scenario testing, using additional test data generated from retrospective CBCT-planning CT soft-tissue registrations for 13/36 patients whose data was used in the FASTV_OAR/global modelling. Modelling of the TV targeting errors resulted in a very low probability of corrected distances between the CBCT and planning CT prostate or PSV volumes being within their thresholds. Strength of influence evaluation with and without the BN TV targeting error nodes indicated that rectum and bladder related network variables had the highest relative importance. When the TV targeting error nodes were excluded from the BN, TPC was sensitive to observed PSV and rectum variations while the decision to treat was sensitive to observed prostate and PSV variations. When root nodes were set so the PSV and rectum variations exceeded thresholds, the probability of low TPC increased to 40%. Prostate and PSV variations exceeding thresholds increased the likelihood of repositioning or repeating patient preparation to 43%. Scenario testing using the test data from thirteen patients, demonstrated two cases where the BN provided increased high TPC probabilities, despite some of the prostate and PSV volume variation metrics not being within tolerance. The IGRTREV tool was effective in highlighting and quantifying where TV and OAR variations occurred, supporting the BN recommendation to reposition the patient or repeat their bladder and bowel preparation. In another case, the IGRTREV tool was also effective in highlighting where PSV volume variation significantly exceeded tolerance when the BN had indicated to proceed with treatment. This study has demonstrated that both the BN and IGRTREV plots are effective tools for inclusion in a decision support system for online CBCT-based IGRT for prostate cancer patients. Alternate approaches to modelling TV targeting errors need to be explored as well as extension of the BN to support offline IGRT decisions related to adaptive radiotherapy. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 48 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 48 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 10 21%
Student > Bachelor 5 10%
Student > Master 4 8%
Other 3 6%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 6%
Other 10 21%
Unknown 13 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 13 27%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 13%
Physics and Astronomy 3 6%
Social Sciences 3 6%
Unspecified 2 4%
Other 5 10%
Unknown 16 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 11 June 2018.
All research outputs
#18,630,234
of 23,079,238 outputs
Outputs from Medical Physics
#6,157
of 7,726 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#254,210
of 328,934 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Medical Physics
#37
of 61 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,079,238 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,726 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.4. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 328,934 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 61 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.