Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28262474›Full record

Trial reportInternational journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics2017

Multi-institutional Randomized Trial Testing the Utility of an Interactive Three-dimensional Contouring Atlas Among Radiation Oncology Residents.

Erin F Gillespie, Neil Panjwani, Daniel W Golden, Jillian Gunther, Tobias R Chapman, Jeffrey V Brower, Robert Kosztyla, Grant Larson, Pushpa Neppala, Vitali Moiseenko and 3 more

Abstract readMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

22 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Enhancing IMRT/VMAT Competencies in LMICs globally within radiation physicists through remote training.Radiotherapy and oncology : journal of the European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology · 2025
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Radiation Oncology Education Collaborative Study Group Annual Spring Symposium: Initial Impact and Feedback.Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education · 2022
    Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Development and Usage ofJCO clinical cancer informatics · 2019
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

13 authors.

Erin F GillespieDepartment of Radiation Medicine and Applied Sciences, University of California, San Diego, School of Medicine, La Jolla, California. Electronic address: efgillespie@ucsd.edu.
Neil PanjwaniDepartment of Radiation Medicine and Applied Sciences, University of California, San Diego, School of Medicine, La Jolla, California.
Daniel W GoldenDepartment of Radiation and Cellular Oncology, University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois.
Jillian GuntherDivision of Radiation Oncology, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas.
Tobias R ChapmanDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington.
Jeffrey V BrowerDepartment of Human Oncology, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin.
Robert KosztylaDepartment of Medical Physics, Tom Baker Cancer Center, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
Grant LarsonDepartment of Radiation Medicine and Applied Sciences, University of California, San Diego, School of Medicine, La Jolla, California.
Pushpa NeppalaDepartment of Radiation Medicine and Applied Sciences, University of California, San Diego, School of Medicine, La Jolla, California.
Vitali MoiseenkoDepartment of Radiation Medicine and Applied Sciences, University of California, San Diego, School of Medicine, La Jolla, California.
Julie BykowskiDepartment of Radiology, University of California, San Diego, Health Science Center, San Diego, California.
Parag SanghviDepartment of Radiation Medicine and Applied Sciences, University of California, San Diego, School of Medicine, La Jolla, California.
James D MurphyDepartment of Radiation Medicine and Applied Sciences, University of California, San Diego, School of Medicine, La Jolla, California.

Funding

Interactive Contouring Atlas for Radiation OncologyR03HS024321 · AHRQ · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN DIEGO · PI MURPHY, JAMES D · 2016 to 2016
$100k
AHRQ HHS R03 HS024321
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe delivery of safe and effective radiation therapy relies on accurate target delineation, particularly in the era of highly conformal treatment techniques. Current contouring resources are fragmented and can be cumbersome to use. The present study reports on the efficacy and usability of a web-based contouring atlas compared with those of existing contouring resources in a randomized trial. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We enrolled radiation oncology residents into a 2-phase contouring study. All residents contoured a T1N1 nasopharyngeal cancer case using the currently available resources. The participants were then randomized to recontour the case with access to existing resources or an interactive web-based contouring atlas (eContour.org). Contour analysis was performed using conformation number and simultaneous truth and performance level estimation. At completion of the second contouring session, the residents completed a multiple choice question knowledge test and a 10-item System Usability Scale.

resultsTwenty-four residents from 5 institutions completed the study. Compared with the residents using currently available resources, the residents using eContour had improved contour agreement with both the consensus (0.63 vs 0.52; P=.02) and the expert (0.58 vs 0.50; P=.01) contours for the high-risk clinical target volume and greater agreement with the expert contour for the contralateral parotid gland (0.44 ± 0.12 vs 0.56 ± 0.08; P=.003). The residents using eContour demonstrated greater knowledge of contour delineation and radiographic anatomy on a multiple-choice knowledge-based test (89% vs 77%; P=.03). Usability (89 vs 66; P<.0001) and satisfaction (4.1 vs 3.0; P=.002) were greater for eContour than for the existing resources.

conclusionsThis study demonstrates the capacity of an interactive 3-dimensional contouring atlas to improve quality of resident target delineation in radiation oncology. Further research is needed to define the utility of easily accessible interactive educational reference tool to improve adherence to contouring-based guidelines and quality of care in routine clinical practice.

Indexed as

InternetInternship and ResidencyMedical IllustrationRadiation OncologyCochleaConsensusFemaleHumansMaleNasopharyngeal NeoplasmsNeoplasm StagingOrgans at RiskParotid GlandRadiotherapy Planning, Computer-AssistedTumor Burden

Identifiers

PMID28262474
PMCPMC13407056

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.