ArticleTechnology in cancer research & treatment
Interobserver Variations in Target Delineation in Intensity-Modulated Radiation Therapy for Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma and its Impact on Target Dose Coverage.
Article in Technology in cancer research & treatment. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Impacts of volumetric vs. anatomical accuracies in GTV segmentation for nasopharyngeal carcinoma: a consensus-guideline-based study.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Interobserver variability in organ delineation on radiotherapy treatment planning for nasopharyngeal carcinoma: A dosimetric and prognostic analysis.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Article
- Landmark-based auto-contouring of clinical target volumes for radiotherapy of nasopharyngeal cancer.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2024Article
- Review
- Clinical adoption of deep learning target auto-segmentation for radiation therapy: challenges, clinical risks, and mitigation strategies.BJR artificial intelligence · 2024Review
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
backgroundTo investigate the differences between physicians in target delineation in intensity-modulated radiation therapy for nasopharyngeal carcinoma as well as their impact on target dose coverage.
methodsNinety-nine in-hospital patients were randomly selected for retrospective analysis, and the target volumes were delineated by 2 physicians. The target volumes were integrated with the original plans, and the differential parameters, including the Dice similarity coefficient (DSC), Hausdorff distance (HD), and Jaccard similarity coefficient (JSC) were recorded. The dose-volume parameters to evaluate target dose coverage were analyzed by superimposing the same original plan to the 2 sets of images on which the target volumes were contoured by the 2 physicians. The significance of differences in target volumes and dose coverage were evaluated using statistical analysis.
resultsThe target dose coverage for different sets of target volumes showed statistically significant differences, while the similarity metrics to evaluate geometric target volume differences did not. More specifically, for PGTVnx, the median DSC, JSC, and HD were 0.85, 0.74, and 11.73, respectively; for PCTV1, the median values were 0.87, 0.77, and 11.78, respectively; for PCTV2, the median values were 0.90, 0.82, and 16.12, respectively. For patients in stages T3-4, DSC, and JSC were reduced but HD was increased compared to those in stages T1-2. Dosimetric analysis indicated that, for the target volumes, significant differences between the 2 physicians were found in D95, D99, and V100 for all the target volumes (ie, PGTVnx, PCTV1, and PCTV2) across the whole group of patients, as well as in patients with disease stages T3-4 and T1-2.
conclusionsThe target volumes delineated by the 2 physicians had a high similarity, but the maximal distances between the outer contours of the 2 sets were significantly different. In patients with advanced T stages, significant differences in dose distributions were found, stemming from the deviations of target delineation.
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.