Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36608770›Full record

ArticleRadiotherapy and oncology : journal of the European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology2023

Evaluation of therapeutic radiographer contouring for magnetic resonance image guided online adaptive prostate radiotherapy.

Gillian Adair Smith, Alex Dunlop, Sophie E Alexander, Helen Barnes, Francis Casey, Joan Chick, Ranga Gunapala, Trina Herbert, Rebekah Lawes, Sarah A Mason and 12 more

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Radiotherapy and oncology : journal of the European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed
10.7field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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

23 citing papers in PubMed, 30 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. The Value of Radiation Therapists in Online Adaptive Radiotherapy.Journal of medical radiation sciences · 2025
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Training for tomorrow: Establishing a worldwide curriculum in online adaptive radiation therapy.Technical innovations & patient support in radiation oncology · 2025
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  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

22 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Gillian Adair SmithThe Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom. Electronic address: gillian.smith1@rmh.nhs.uk.
Alex DunlopJoint Department of Physics at the Royal Marsden and The Institute of Cancer Research, United Kingdom.
Sophie E AlexanderThe Institute of Cancer Research/The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom.
Helen BarnesThe Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom.
Francis CaseyJoint Department of Physics at the Royal Marsden and The Institute of Cancer Research, United Kingdom.
Joan ChickJoint Department of Physics at the Royal Marsden and The Institute of Cancer Research, United Kingdom.
Ranga GunapalaClinical Trials and Statistic Unit, The Institute for Cancer Research, London, United Kingdom.
Trina HerbertThe Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom.
Rebekah LawesThe Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom.
Sarah A MasonJoint Department of Physics at the Royal Marsden and The Institute of Cancer Research, United Kingdom.
Adam MitchellJoint Department of Physics at the Royal Marsden and The Institute of Cancer Research, United Kingdom.
Jonathan MohajerJoint Department of Physics at the Royal Marsden and The Institute of Cancer Research, United Kingdom.
Julia MurrayThe Institute of Cancer Research/The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom.
Simeon NillJoint Department of Physics at the Royal Marsden and The Institute of Cancer Research, United Kingdom.
Priyanka PatelThe Institute of Cancer Research/The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom.
Angela PathmanathanThe Institute of Cancer Research/The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom.
Kobika SritharanThe Institute of Cancer Research/The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom.
Nora SundahlThe Institute of Cancer Research/The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom.
Alison C TreeThe Institute of Cancer Research/The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom.
Rosalyne WestleyThe Institute of Cancer Research/The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom.
Bethany WilliamsThe Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom.
Helen A McNairThe Institute of Cancer Research/The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom.
Institute of Cancer Research · GBRoyal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust · GB

Funding

Cancer Research UK 19727Cancer Research UK 28284Cancer Research UK C33589/A28284Cancer Research UK C7224/A28724
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

background and purposeThe implementation of MRI-guided online adaptive radiotherapy has facilitated the extension of therapeutic radiographers' roles to include contouring, thus releasing the clinician from attending daily treatment. Following undergoing a specifically designed training programme, an online interobserver variability study was performed. MATERIALS AND

methods117 images from six patients treated on a MR Linac were contoured online by either radiographer or clinician and the same images contoured offline by the alternate profession. Dice similarity coefficient (DSC), mean distance to agreement (MDA), Hausdorff distance (HD) and volume metrics were used to analyse contours. Additionally, the online radiographer contours and optimised plans (n = 59) were analysed using the offline clinician defined contours. After clinical implementation of radiographer contouring, target volume comparison and dose analysis was performed on 20 contours from five patients.

resultsComparison of the radiographers' and clinicians' contours resulted in a median (range) DSC of 0.92 (0.86 - 0.99), median (range) MDA of 0.98 mm (0.2-1.7) and median (range) HD of 6.3 mm (2.5-11.5) for all 117 fractions. There was no significant difference in volume size between the two groups. Of the 59 plans created with radiographer online contours and overlaid with clinicians' offline contours, 39 met mandatory dose constraints and 12 were acceptable because 95 % of the high dose PTV was covered by 95 % dose, or the high dose PTV was within 3 % of online plan. A clinician blindly reviewed the eight remaining fractions and, using trial quality assurance metrics, deemed all to be acceptable. Following clinical implementation of radiographer contouring, the median (range) DSC of CTV was 0.93 (0.88-1.0), median (range) MDA was 0.8 mm (0.04-1.18) and HD was 5.15 mm (2.09-8.54) respectively. Of the 20 plans created using radiographer online contours overlaid with clinicians' offline contours, 18 met the dosimetric success criteria, the remaining 2 were deemed acceptable by a clinician.

conclusionRadiographer and clinician prostate and seminal vesicle contours on MRI for an online adaptive workflow are comparable and produce clinically acceptable plans. Radiographer contouring for prostate treatment on a MR-linac can be effectively introduced with appropriate training and evaluation. A DSC threshold for target structures could be implemented to streamline future training.

Indexed as

Prostatic NeoplasmsRadiotherapy, Image-GuidedHumansMagnetic Resonance ImagingMalePelvisProstateRadiotherapy Planning, Computer-AssistedSeminal VesiclesMR-LinacProstate radiotherapyRadiographer contouring

Identifiers

PMID36608770
PMCPMC10074473
OpenAlexW4313529519

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.