ArticleRadiation oncology (London, England)2021
Cranial organs at risk delineation: heterogenous practices in radiotherapy planning.
Article in Radiation oncology (London, England), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Performance of artificial intelligence for brain tumor segmentation, treatment planning, and outcome prediction: a comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of neuro-oncology · 2025Pooled it
- Hippocampal avoidance in whole brain radiotherapy and prophylactic cranial irradiation: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of neuro-oncology · 2023Pooled it
- Radiotherapy quality assurance in the PRO-GLIO trial: results from a dummy run comparing experts across twelve institutions in two Scandinavian countries.Clinical and translational radiation oncology · 2026Article
- Multimodal deep learning to support delineation of neuro-oncology organs based on the EPTN international neurological contouring atlas.Physics and imaging in radiation oncology · 2026Article
- Research Trends and Knowledge Atlas of Radiotherapy-Related Cognitive Impairment: A Bibliometric Analysis.Current neuropharmacology · 2026Review
- [18]F-fluoroethyl-l-tyrosine positron emission tomography for radiotherapy target delineation: Results from a Radiation Oncology credentialing program.Physics and imaging in radiation oncology · 2024Article
- Validation of a deep-learning segmentation model for adult and pediatric head and neck radiotherapy in different patient positions.Physics and imaging in radiation oncology · 2024Article
- Neurocognition and mean radiotherapy dose to vulnerable brain structures: new organs at risk?Radiation oncology (London, England) · 2023Article
- Deep-learning magnetic resonance imaging-based automatic segmentation for organs-at-risk in the brain: Accuracy and impact on dose distribution.Physics and imaging in radiation oncology · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSegmentation is a crucial step in treatment planning that directly impacts dose distribution and optimization. The aim of this study was to evaluate the inter-individual variability of common cranial organs at risk (OAR) delineation in neurooncology practice.
methodsAnonymized simulation contrast-enhanced CT and MR scans of one patient with a solitary brain metastasis was used for delineation and analysis. Expert professionals from 16 radiotherapy centers involved in brain structures delineation were asked to segment 9 OAR on their own treatment planning system. As reference, two experts in neurooncology, produced a unique consensual contour set according to guidelines. Overlap ratio, Kappa index (KI), volumetric ratio, Commonly Contoured Volume, Supplementary Contoured Volume were evaluated using Artiview™ v 2.8.2-according to occupation, seniority and level of expertise of all participants.
resultsFor the most frequently delineated and largest OAR, the mean KI are often good (0.8 for the parotid and the brainstem); however, for the smaller OAR, KI degrade (0.3 for the optic chiasm, 0.5% for the cochlea), with a significant discrimination (p < 0.01). The radiation oncologists, members of Association des Neuro-Oncologue d'Expression Française society performed better in all indicators compared to non-members (p < 0.01). Our exercise was effective in separating the different participating centers with 3 of the reported indicators (p < 0.01).
conclusionOur study illustrates the heterogeneity in normal structures contouring between professionals. We emphasize the need for cerebral OAR delineation harmonization-that is a major determinant of therapeutic ratio and clinical trials evaluation.
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.