ArticleJournal of applied clinical medical physics2024
Geometric and dosimetric evaluation for breast and regional nodal auto-segmentation structures.
Article in Journal of applied clinical medical physics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Automated segmentation of target volumes in breast cancer radiotherapy, impact on target size and dose to organs at risk.Clinical and translational radiation oncology · 2025Article
- Radiotherapy improves survival in HER2-positive breast cancer with lung metastases: a retrospective study with artificial intelligence-based prognostic modeling.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Article
- Geometric and dosimetric evaluation for breast and regional nodal auto-segmentation structures.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2024Article
- Clinical feasibility of Ethos auto-segmentation for adaptive whole-breast cancer treatment.Frontiers in oncology · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The accuracy of artificial intelligence (AI) generated contours for intact-breast and post-mastectomy radiotherapy plans was evaluated. Geometric and dosimetric comparisons were performed between auto-contours (ACs) and manual-contours (MCs) produced by physicians for target structures. Breast and regional nodal structures were manually delineated on 66 breast cancer patients. ACs were retrospectively generated. The characteristics of the breast/post-mastectomy chestwall (CW) and regional nodal structures (axillary [AxN], supraclavicular [SC], internal mammary [IM]) were geometrically evaluated by Dice similarity coefficient (DSC), mean surface distance, and Hausdorff Distance. The structures were also evaluated dosimetrically by superimposing the MC clinically delivered plans onto the ACs to assess the impact of utilizing ACs with target dose (Vx%) evaluation. Positive geometric correlations between volume and DSC for intact-breast, AxN, and CW were observed. Little or anti correlations between volume and DSC for IM and SC were shown. For intact-breast plans, insignificant dosimetric differences between ACs and MCs were observed for AxN
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.