ArticlePhysical and engineering sciences in medicine2024
Comparison of commercial atlas-based automatic segmentation software for prostate radiotherapy treatment planning.
Article in Physical and engineering sciences in medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Practical deep learning solutions for prostate cancer segmentation and implementation in radiotherapy planning.Physical and engineering sciences in medicine · 2026Article
- Current status and upcoming developments for online adaptive proton therapy enabling a closed feedback loop for near real-time adaptation.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Review
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.
Funding
Abstract
This study aims to assess the accuracy of automatic atlas-based contours for various key anatomical structures in prostate radiotherapy treatment planning. The evaluated structures include the bladder, rectum, prostate, seminal vesicles, femoral heads and penile bulb. CT images from 20 patients who underwent intensity-modulated radiotherapy were randomly chosen to create an atlas library. Atlas contours of the seven anatomical structures were generated using four software packages: ABAS, Eclipse, MIM, and RayStation. These contours were then compared to manual delineations performed by oncologists, which served as the ground truth. Evaluation metrics such as dice similarity coefficient (DSC), mean distance to agreement (MDA), and volume ratio (VR) were calculated to assess the accuracy of the contours. Additionally, the time taken by each software to generate the atlas contour was recorded. The mean DSC values for the bladder exhibited strong agreement (>0.8) with manual delineations for all software except for Eclipse and RayStation. Similarly, the femoral heads showed significant similarity between the atlas contours and ground truth across all software, with mean DSC values exceeding 0.9 and MDA values close to zero. On the other hand, the penile bulb displayed only moderate agreement with the ground truth, with mean DSC values ranging from 0.5 to 0.7 for all software. A similar trend was observed in the prostate atlas contours, except for MIM, which achieved a mean DSC of over 0.8. For the rectum, both ABAS and MIM atlases demonstrated strong agreement with the ground truth, resulting in mean DSC values of more than 0.8. Overall, MIM and ABAS outperformed Eclipse and RayStation in both DSC and MDA. These results indicate that the atlas-based segmentation employed in this study produces acceptable contours for the anatomical structures of interest in prostate radiotherapy treatment planning.
Indexed as
Identifiers
38647633What 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.