ArticlePhysics and imaging in radiation oncology2024
Estimating how contouring differences affect normal tissue complication probability modelling.
Article in Physics and imaging in radiation oncology, 2024. 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, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Cardiac substructure dosimetry in thoracic radiotherapy: moving beyond mean heart dose and toward precision cardiac risk mitigation.Strahlentherapie und Onkologie : Organ der Deutschen Rontgengesellschaft ... [et al] · 2026Review
- A semi-automated workflow for cohort-wise preparation of radiotherapy data for dose-response modeling, including autosegmentation of organs at risk.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2025Article
- Updating historical normal tissue dose/volume constraints to current levels of treatment precision and accuracy.Physics and imaging in radiation oncology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and purpose: Normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) models are developed from large retrospective datasets where automatic contouring is often used to contour the organs at risk. This study proposes a methodology to estimate how discrepancies between two sets of contours are reflected on NTCP model performance. We apply this methodology to heart contours within a dataset of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients. Materials and methods: One of the contour sets is designated the ground truth and a dosimetric parameter derived from it is used to simulate outcomes via a predefined NTCP relationship. For each simulated outcome, the selected dosimetric parameters associated with each contour set are individually used to fit a toxicity model and their performance is compared. Our dataset comprised 605 stage IIA-IIIB NSCLC patients. Manual, deep learning, and atlas-based heart contours were available. Results: How contour differences were reflected in NTCP model performance depended on the slope of the predefined model, the dosimetric parameter utilized, and the size of the cohort. The impact of contour differences on NTCP model performance increased with steeper NTCP curves. In our dataset, parameters on the low range of the dose-volume histogram were more robust to contour differences. Conclusions: Our methodology can be used to estimate whether a given contouring model is fit for NTCP model development. For the heart in comparable datasets, average Dice should be at least as high as between our manual and deep learning contours for shallow NTCP relationships (88.5 ± 4.5 %) and higher for steep relationships.
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.