Skip to main navigation Skip to search Skip to main content

Automated prospective quality assurance of tumor segmentation and treatment planning in the hypo-FLAME 3.0 trial

  • Joost Surewaard
  • , Ruben Bosschaert
  • , Herbert Beemster
  • , Bas Schipaanboord
  • , Mathijs G. Dassen
  • , Osman Akdag
  • , Barry Doodeman
  • , Fons van den Bergh
  • , Martina Kunze-Busch
  • , Robin De Roover
  • , Cédric Draulans
  • , Karin Haustermans
  • , Danny Schuring
  • , Hendrik Piersma
  • , Ans Pelgrims
  • , Ann Coelmont
  • , Georgiana Stoian
  • , Hans C.J. de Boer
  • , Kenny Geens
  • , Sara Poeta
  • Tomas M. Janssen, Floris J. Pos, Uulke A. van der Heide*
*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

Abstract

Background and purpose: Iso-toxic focal boosting in prostate cancer radiotherapy is associated with improved disease-free survival but faces challenges due to tumor segmentation variability and unconventional treatment planning. The aim of this study was to develop an automated system of prospective quality assurance (QA) on tumor segmentation and treatment planning in a clinical trial setting and to implement it in the study arm of the multi-center hypo-FLAME 3.0 trial (NCT05705921) on iso-toxic focal boosting. Materials and methods: We developed an automated QA system to process data from participating centers, apply tumor segmentation evaluation models and plan evaluation models and generate reports for centralized review. Tumor segmentation was evaluated by a model generating tumor probability maps from MRI scans. Focal boost quality was evaluated with a model predicting achievable near-minimum dose for each tumor based on anatomical features. Results: The QA system was applied to 134 patients who participated in the study arm of the hypo-FLAME 3.0 trial between June 2023 and July 2025. They were recruited from 11 centers in the Netherlands and Belgium. Three and 10 out of 134 cases were recommended for resegmentation and replanning, respectively. We responded to external institutes within 12 business hours in 77% and 81% of the cases for the segmentation and the planning QA, respectively. Conclusion: We developed an automated system of prospective QA in a clinical trial setting and implemented it for all patients in the study arm of the phase III hypo-FLAME 3.0 trial.

Original languageEnglish
Article number111608
JournalRadiotherapy and Oncology
Volume221
Early online date27 May 2026
DOIs
Publication statusE-pub ahead of print - 27 May 2026

Keywords

  • Clinical trial
  • Quality assurance

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Automated prospective quality assurance of tumor segmentation and treatment planning in the hypo-FLAME 3.0 trial'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this