ArticleEcancermedicalscience2020
The emerging role of radiation therapists in the contouring of organs at risk in radiotherapy: analysis of inter-observer variability with radiation oncologists for the chest and upper abdomen.
Article in Ecancermedicalscience, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed.
- Interpretable Machine Learning for Choosing Radiation Dose-volume Constraints on Cardio-pulmonary Substructures Associated with Overall Survival in NRG Oncology RTOG 0617.International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics · 2023Trial
- Deformable image registration accuracy: impact of user-defined parameter selection on contour propagation for deep inspiration breath-hold and free breathing breast radiotherapy.BMC medical imaging · 2026Article
- Article
- Geometric and dosimetric evaluation of a commercial AI auto-contouring tool on multiple anatomical sites in CT scans.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2025Article
- Correlation between rCBV Delineation Similarity and Overall Survival in a Prospective Cohort of High-Grade Gliomas Patients: The Hidden Value of Multimodal MRI?Biomedicines · 2024Article
- Estimating how contouring differences affect normal tissue complication probability modelling.Physics and imaging in radiation oncology · 2024Article
- Clinical assessment of a novel machine-learning automated contouring tool for radiotherapy planning.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2023Article
- Large scale crowdsourced radiotherapy segmentations across a variety of cancer anatomic sites.Scientific data · 2023Article
- Deep learning application for abdominal organs segmentation on 0.35 T MR-Linac images.Frontiers in oncology · 2023Article
- Online adaptive MR-guided radiotherapy: Conformity of contour adaptation for prostate cancer, rectal cancer and lymph node oligometastases among radiation therapists and radiation oncologists.Technical innovations & patient support in radiation oncology · 2022Article
- Implementation of web-based open-source radiotherapy delineation software (WORDS) in organs at risk contouring training for newly qualified radiotherapists: quantitative comparison with conventional one-to-one coaching approach.BMC medical education · 2021Article
- Quantitative Evaluation of Artificial Intelligence-Based Organ Segmentation Across Multiple Anatomic Sites Using 8 Commercial Software Platforms.Practical radiation oncologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimsTo compare the contouring of organs at risk (OAR) between a clinical specialist radiation therapist (CSRT) and radiation oncologists (ROs) with different levels of expertise (senior-SRO, junior-JRO, fellow-FRO).
methodsOn ten planning computed tomography (CT) image sets of patients undergoing breast radiotherapy (RT), the observers independently contoured the contralateral breast, heart, left anterior descending artery (LAD), oesophagus, kidney, liver, spinal cord, stomach and trachea. The CSRT was instructed by the JRO e SRO. The inter-observer variability of contoured volumes was measured using the Dice similarity coefficient (DSC) (threshold of ≥ 0.7 for good concordance) and the centre of mass distance (CMD). The analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed and a
resultsGood overlaps (DSC > 0.7) were obtained for all OARs, except for LAD (DSC = 0.34 ± 0.17, mean ± standard deviation) and oesophagus (DSC = 0.66 ± 0.06, mean ± SD). The mean CMD < 1 cm was achieved for all the OARs, but spinal cord (CMD = 1.22 cm). By pairing the observers, mean DSC > 0.7 and mean CMD < 1 cm were achieved in all cases. The best overlaps were seen for the pairs JRO-CSRT(DSC = 0.82; CMD = 0.49 cm) and SRO-JRO (DSC = 0.80; CMD = 0.51 cm).
conclusionsOverall, good concordance was found for all the observers. Despite the short training in contouring, CSRT obtained good concordance with his tutor (JRO). Great variability was seen in contouring the LAD, due to its difficult visualization and identification of CT scans without contrast.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.