Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35064746›Full record

ArticleJournal of applied clinical medical physics2022

Clinical validation of an automatic atlas-based segmentation tool for male pelvis CT images.

Marta Casati, Stefano Piffer, Silvia Calusi, Livia Marrazzo, Gabriele Simontacchi, Vanessa Di Cataldo, Daniela Greto, Isacco Desideri, Marco Vernaleone, Giulio Francolini and 2 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of applied clinical medical physics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. 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

12 authors.

Marta CasatiMedical Physics Unit, Careggi University Hospital, Florence, Italy.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1863-6755
Stefano PifferDepartment of Experimental and Clinical Biomedical Sciences, University of Florence, Florence, Italy.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6474-2885
Silvia CalusiDepartment of Experimental and Clinical Biomedical Sciences, University of Florence, Florence, Italy.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7700-4446
Livia MarrazzoMedical Physics Unit, Careggi University Hospital, Florence, Italy.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9622-9413
Gabriele SimontacchiRadiation Oncology Unit, Careggi University Hospital, Florence, Italy.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4005-6637
Vanessa Di CataldoFlorentine Institute of Care and Assistance (IFCA), Florence, Italy.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3451-415X
Daniela GretoRadiation Oncology Unit, Careggi University Hospital, Florence, Italy.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2667-0841
Isacco DesideriDepartment of Experimental and Clinical Biomedical Sciences, University of Florence, Florence, Italy.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9880-8387
Marco VernaleoneRadiation Oncology Unit, Careggi University Hospital, Florence, Italy.
Giulio FrancoliniRadiation Oncology Unit, Careggi University Hospital, Florence, Italy.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1784-7203
Lorenzo LiviDepartment of Experimental and Clinical Biomedical Sciences, University of Florence, Florence, Italy.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7755-9422
Stefania PallottaMedical Physics Unit, Careggi University Hospital, Florence, Italy.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4123-7971

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThis retrospective work aims to evaluate the possible impact on intra- and inter-observer variability, contouring time, and contour accuracy of introducing a pelvis computed tomography (CT) auto-segmentation tool in radiotherapy planning workflow.

methodsTests were carried out on five structures (bladder, rectum, pelvic lymph-nodes, and femoral heads) of six previously treated subjects, enrolling five radiation oncologists (ROs) to manually re-contour and edit auto-contours generated with a male pelvis CT atlas created with the commercial software MIM MAESTRO. The ROs first delineated manual contours (M). Then they modified the auto-contours, producing automatic-modified (AM) contours. The procedure was repeated to evaluate intra-observer variability, producing M1, M2, AM1, and AM2 contour sets (each comprising 5 structures × 6 test patients × 5 ROs = 150 contours), for a total of 600 contours. Potential time savings was evaluated by comparing contouring and editing times. Structure contours were compared to a reference standard by means of Dice similarity coefficient (DSC) and mean distance to agreement (MDA), to assess intra- and inter-observer variability. To exclude any automation bias, ROs evaluated both M and AM sets as "clinically acceptable" or "to be corrected" in a blind test.

resultsComparing AM to M sets, a significant reduction of both inter-observer variability (p < 0.001) and contouring time (-45% whole pelvis, p < 0.001) was obtained. Intra-observer variability reduction was significant only for bladder and femoral heads (p < 0.001). The statistical test showed no significant bias.

conclusionOur atlas-based workflow proved to be effective for clinical practice as it can improve contour reproducibility and generate time savings. Based on these findings, institutions are encouraged to implement their auto-segmentation method.

Indexed as

Radiotherapy Planning, Computer-AssistedTomography, X-Ray ComputedHumansMaleObserver VariationPelvisReproducibility of ResultsRetrospective Studiesauto-contouringCTinter-observerintra-observerpelvistime savings

Identifiers

PMID35064746
PMCPMC8906199

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.