Back

Using artificial intelligence for radiotherapy clinical trial quality assurance: analysis of a multi-institutional clinical trial for neurovascular-sparing prostate stereotactic ablative radiotherapy

Doucette, M.; Zhang, Y.; Liao, C.-Y.; Lin, M.-H.; Yan, Y.; Dess, R. T.; Tendulkar, R. D.; Garant, A.; Hannan, R.; Jiang, S.; Nguyen, D.; Desai, N.; Yang, D. X.

2026-05-29 health informatics
10.64898/2026.05.27.26354252 medRxiv
Show abstract

Our study evaluated whether a deep learning auto segmentation model combined with machine learning triage can streamline radiotherapy clinical trial quality assurance (QA). We analyzed 107 stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) cases from a multi-institutional phase II clinical trial of neurovascular sparing prostate SABR, focusing on physician contours of the internal pudendal artery (IPA) as a novel organ-at-risk with substantial interobserver variability. Contours were scored by the trial principal investigator as Per-Protocol or Minor Deviation/Unacceptable. We applied a deep learning model for IPA auto-segmentation. Agreement between human and AI contours was then quantified using 14 overlap, distance, and surface metrics, and a supervised classifier was trained on these metrics to flag clinical trial protocol deviations. While AI segmentation achieved only modest geometric accuracy with mean Dice similarity coefficient of 0.446 and 95th percentile Hausdorff distance of 14.23, when incorporating all 14 metrics, a machine learning classifier yielded AUROC of 0.836, flagging all Minor Deviation/Unacceptable cases with 100% sensitivity on the 27 case hold-out set with 6 false positives and no false negatives. AI segmentation combined with metrics-based machine learning can triage protocol deviations within a multi-institution radiotherapy clinical trial, supporting prospective evaluation of AI-assisted trial QA.

Matching journals

The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
International Journal of Radiation Oncology*Biology*Physics
21 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
17.7%
2
JCO Clinical Cancer Informatics
18 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
10.2%
3
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 6%
10.2%
4
Radiotherapy and Oncology
18 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
7.3%
5
Nature Communications
4913 papers in training set
Top 32%
4.9%
50% of probability mass above
6
Scientific Data
174 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
3.6%
7
Medical Physics
14 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
3.6%
8
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 43%
2.8%
9
BMJ Open
554 papers in training set
Top 7%
2.4%
10
Computers in Biology and Medicine
120 papers in training set
Top 1%
2.4%
11
Clinical and Translational Science
21 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.9%
12
Cancer Medicine
24 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
1.7%
13
Computer Methods and Programs in Biomedicine
27 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.5%
14
Journal of Infection
71 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.3%
15
NeuroImage: Clinical
132 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.2%
16
Annals of Internal Medicine
27 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
0.8%
17
Human Brain Mapping
295 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.8%
18
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
39 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.8%
19
Informatics in Medicine Unlocked
21 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.7%
20
Frontiers in Microbiology
375 papers in training set
Top 9%
0.7%
21
Bioinformatics
1061 papers in training set
Top 10%
0.7%
22
Clinical Cancer Research
58 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.7%
23
Cell Reports Medicine
140 papers in training set
Top 9%
0.7%
24
npj Digital Medicine
97 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.7%
25
JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute
16 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
0.7%
26
Neuro-Oncology
30 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
0.5%
27
eLife
5422 papers in training set
Top 63%
0.5%
28
Science Advances
1098 papers in training set
Top 35%
0.5%
29
iScience
1063 papers in training set
Top 40%
0.5%
30
PLOS Computational Biology
1633 papers in training set
Top 29%
0.5%