ArticleStrahlentherapie und Onkologie : Organ der Deutschen Rontgengesellschaft ... [et al]2012
Assessment of accuracy and efficiency of atlas-based autosegmentation for prostate radiotherapy in a variety of clinical conditions.
Article in Strahlentherapie und Onkologie : Organ der Deutschen Rontgengesellschaft ... [et al], 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
27 citing papers in PubMed.
- Prospective randomized double-blind study of atlas-based organ-at-risk autosegmentation-assisted radiation planning in head and neck cancer.Radiotherapy and oncology : journal of the European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology · 2014Trial
- Inter-observer variability in radiotherapy contouring with the use of autocontouring software: A systematic review.Clinical and translational radiation oncology · 2026Review
- Comparison of commercial atlas-based automatic segmentation software for prostate radiotherapy treatment planning.Physical and engineering sciences in medicine · 2024Article
- Cascaded cross-attention transformers and convolutional neural networks for multi-organ segmentation in male pelvic computed tomography.Journal of medical imaging (Bellingham, Wash.) · 2024Article
- A Technique to Enable Efficient Adaptive Radiation Therapy: Automated Contouring of Prostate and Adjacent Organs.Advances in radiation oncology · 2024Article
- Automated Contouring and Planning in Radiation Therapy: What Is 'Clinically Acceptable'?Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Dosimetric comparison of automatically propagated prostate contours with manually drawn contours in MRI-guided radiotherapy: A step towards a contouring free workflow?Clinical and translational radiation oncology · 2022Article
- Evaluating the Effectiveness of Deep Learning Contouring across Multiple Radiotherapy Centres.Physics and imaging in radiation oncology · 2022Article
- Knowledge-based quality control of organ delineations in radiation therapy.Medical physics · 2022Article
- Novel Autosegmentation Spatial Similarity Metrics Capture the Time Required to Correct Segmentations Better Than Traditional Metrics in a Thoracic Cavity Segmentation Workflow.Journal of digital imaging · 2021Article
- Male pelvic CT multi-organ segmentation using synthetic MRI-aided dual pyramid networks.Physics in medicine and biology · 2021Article
- A Deep Learning-Based Automated CT Segmentation of Prostate Cancer Anatomy for Radiation Therapy Planning-A Retrospective Multicenter Study.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020Article
- Atlas-based auto-segmentation for postoperative radiotherapy planning in endometrial and cervical cancers.Radiation oncology (London, England) · 2020Article
- Generalization vs. Specificity: In Which Cases Should a Clinic Train its Own Segmentation Models?Frontiers in oncology · 2020Article
- Synthetic MRI-aided multi-organ segmentation on male pelvic CT using cycle consistent deep attention network.Radiotherapy and oncology : journal of the European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology · 2019Article
- Automatic image segmentation based on synthetic tissue model for delineating organs at risk in spinal metastasis treatment planning.Strahlentherapie und Onkologie : Organ der Deutschen Rontgengesellschaft ... [et al] · 2019Article
- Impact of CT reconstruction algorithm on auto-segmentation performance.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2019Article
- Applying physical science techniques and CERN technology to an unsolved problem in radiation treatment for cancer: the multidisciplinary 'VoxTox' research programme.CERN ideaSquare journal of experimental innovation · 2017Article
- Clinical adequacy assessment of autocontours for prostate IMRT with meaningful endpoints.Medical physics · 2017Article
- The suitability of common metrics for assessing parotid and larynx autosegmentation accuracy.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
background and purposeThe goal of the current study was to evaluate the commercially available atlas-based autosegmentation software for clinical use in prostate radiotherapy. The accuracy was benchmarked against interobserver variability. MATERIAL AND
methodsA total of 20 planning computed tomographs (CTs) and 10 cone-beam CTs (CBCTs) were selected for prostate, rectum, and bladder delineation. The images varied regarding to individual (age, body mass index) and setup parameters (contrast agent, rectal balloon, implanted markers). Automatically created contours with ABAS(®) and iPlan(®) were compared to an expert's delineation by calculating the Dice similarity coefficient (DSC) and conformity index.
resultsDemo-atlases of both systems showed different results for bladder (DSC(ABAS) 0.86 ± 0.17, DSC(iPlan) 0.51 ± 0.30) and prostate (DSC(ABAS) 0.71 ± 0.14, DSC(iPlan) 0.57 ± 0.19). Rectum delineation (DSC(ABAS) 0.78 ± 0.11, DSC(iPlan) 0.84 ± 0.08) demonstrated differences between the systems but better correlation of the automatically drawn volumes. ABAS(®) was closest to the interobserver benchmark. Autosegmentation with iPlan(®), ABAS(®) and manual segmentation took 0.5, 4 and 15-20 min, respectively. Automatic contouring on CBCT showed high dependence on image quality (DSC bladder 0.54, rectum 0.42, prostate 0.34).
conclusionFor clinical routine, efforts are still necessary to either redesign algorithms implemented in autosegmentation or to optimize image quality for CBCT to guarantee required accuracy and time savings for adaptive radiotherapy.
Indexed as
Identifiers
22669393What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.