ecancermedicalscience

Research

Clinical adoption of radiobiological models and artificial intelligence in radiotherapy treatment planning: a cross-sectional practice survey

22 Oct 2026
Kalyan Mondal, Abhijit Mandal, Anuj Vijay

Introduction: Radiobiological models optimising tumour control probability (TCP) and normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) underpin effective radiotherapy treatment planning; however, real-world adoption – particularly in low- and middle-income country (LMIC) settings and for plan evaluation – remains poorly characterised alongside emerging artificial intelligence and machine learning (AI/ML) applications.

Methods: This cross-sectional survey is a pre-specified component of a mixed-methods systematic review registered with PROSPERO (CRD420251146188); the survey itself is not separately registered. A 40-item anonymous instrument was distributed via the MEDPHYS mailing list and professional society channels. Forty-two self-selected professionals from 10 countries (India 71.4%) responded. Analysis was descriptive, with Wilson 95% confidence intervals; proportions are reported on the full sample (N = 42), with the number of non-respondents stated for every item. Reporting follows CHERRIES guidelines for internet e-surveys.

Results: Confirmed local calibration of radiobiological model parameters was reported by 14.3% (95% CI 6.7%–27.8%) of respondents; 40.5% (95% CI 27.0%–55.5%) reported no calibration and a further 40.5% did not know their institution’s calibration status. Biologically effective dose and equivalent dose in 2 Gy fractions were widely recognised (>70%), while formal TCP and NTCP models were reported substantially less often (<35%). Radiobiological models were used for plan evaluation by 38.1% of respondents; dedicated software was uncommon (commercial 11.9%; open-source 2.4%). Routine clinical use of AI/ML was reported by 19.0% (95% CI 10.0%–33.3%), with auto-contouring the most frequently reported application (50.0%). Publication activity in this domain was low: 83.3% (95% CI 69.4%–91.7%) reported no peer-reviewed publications. The most frequently cited barriers were limited software access (45.2%), inadequate infrastructure (40.5%) and absence of clinical validation guidelines (31.0%).

Conclusion: In this small, self-selected sample, these exploratory findings describe a multi-layered implementation gap spanning model calibration, plan evaluation, training and AI/ML adoption. They are hypothesis-generating rather than representative of national or global practice and indicate priorities for larger, geographically balanced studies and for the accompanying systematic review evidence synthesis (PROSPERO: CRD420251146188).

Related Articles

Prasanth Srinivasan, Gargi Das, Balaji Thiruvengadam Kothandan, Gautam Vydia Vedagiri, Anand Raja, Venkatraman Radhakrishnan
Matías A Atencio, Elías J Ortega Chahla, Mirko Vidic, Candela V Giuffré, Mickaela Echavarría Demichelis, Joaquín A Luini, Franco E Espinoza, Ana M Rosas, María Cruz Germain, Abril Montani, Iñaki M Dopazo Danieli, Joel A Schernenco, Lucas G Durán, María E Esandi
Mariam Hina, Bilal Mazhar Qureshi, Habiba Zaheer, Bilal Ahmed, Maham Khan, Laraib Khan, Tooba Ali, Fabiha Shakeel, Jawad Ahmad, Muhammad Abdul Wasay Zuberi, Maria Tariq, Nasir Ali, Asim Hafiz, Ahmed Nadeem Abbasi