ArticleJournal of applied clinical medical physics2020
Physician review of image registration and normal structure delineation.
Article in Journal of applied clinical medical physics, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Real-time gated proton therapy: Introducing clinical workflow and failure modes and effects analysis (FMEA).Technical innovations & patient support in radiation oncology · 2025Article
- FCB-CHOPS: An Evolution of a Commonly Used Acronym for Evaluating Radiation Treatment Plans.Advances in radiation oncology · 2025Article
- NRG Oncology Assessment of Artificial Intelligence Deep Learning-Based Auto-segmentation for Radiation Therapy: Current Developments, Clinical Considerations, and Future Directions.International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionImage registration and delineation of organs at risk (OARs) are key components of three-dimensional conformal (3DCRT) and intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) treatment planning. This study hypothesized that image registration and OAR delineation are often performed by medical physicists and/or dosimetrists and are not routinely reviewed by treating physicians.
methodsAn anonymous, internet-based survey of medical physicists and dosimetrists was distributed via the MEDPHYS and MEDDOS listserv groups. Participants were asked to characterize standard practices for completion and review of OAR contouring, target volume contouring, and image registration at their institution along with their personal training in these areas and level of comfort performing these tasks. Likert-type scales are reported as Median [Interquartile range] with scores ranging from 1 = "Extremely/All of the time" to 5 = "Not at all/Never."
resultsTwo hundred and ninety-seven individuals responded to the survey. Overall, respondents indicated significantly less frequent physician review (3 [2-4] vs 2 [1-3]), and less confidence in the thoroughness of physician review (3 [2-4] vs 2 [1-3], P < 0.01) of OAR contours compared to image registration. Only 19% (95% CI 14-24%) of respondents reported a formal process by which OAR volumes are reviewed by physicians in their clinic. The presence of a formal review process was also associated with significantly higher perceived thoroughness of review of OAR volumes compared to clinics with no formal review process (2 [2-3] vs 3 [2-4], P < 0.01).
conclusionDespite the critical role of OAR delineation and image registration in the 3DCRT and IMRT treatment planning process, physician review of these tasks is not always optimal. Radiotherapy clinics should consider implementation of formal processes to promote adequate physician review of OARs and image registrations to ensure the quality and safety of radiotherapy treatment plans.
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.