ArticleClinical and translational radiation oncology2024
Validation of different automated segmentation models for target volume contouring in postoperative radiotherapy for breast cancer and regional nodal irradiation.
Article in Clinical and translational 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.
- Prospective blinded clinical evaluation of a fully automated workflow for prostate radiotherapy.Physics and imaging in radiation oncology · 2026Article
- AI in Radiation Oncology: A Comprehensive Review of Current Applications and Future Directions.Cureus · 2025Review
- 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
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Target volume delineation is routinely performed in postoperative radiotherapy (RT) for breast cancer patients, but it is a time-consuming process. The aim of the present study was to validate the quality, clinical usability and institutional-specific implementation of different auto-segmentation tools into clinical routine. Methods: Three different commercially available, artificial intelligence-, ESTRO-guideline-based segmentation models (M1-3) were applied to fifty consecutive reference patients who received postoperative local RT including regional nodal irradiation for breast cancer for the delineation of clinical target volumes: the residual breast, implant or chestwall, axilla levels 1 and 2, the infra- and supraclavicular regions, the interpectoral and internal mammary nodes. Objective evaluation metrics of the created structures were conducted with the Dice similarity index (DICE) and the Hausdorff distance, and a manual evaluation of usability. Results: The resulting geometries of the segmentation models were compared to the reference volumes for each patient and required no or only minor corrections in 72 % (M1), 64 % (M2) and 78 % (M3) of the cases. The median DICE and Hausdorff values for the resulting planning target volumes were 0.87-0.88 and 2.96-3.55, respectively. Clinical usability was significantly correlated with the DICE index, with calculated cut-off values used to define no or minor adjustments of 0.82-0.86. Right or left sided target and breathing method (deep inspiration breath hold vs. free breathing) did not impact the quality of the resulting structures. Conclusion: Artificial intelligence-based auto-segmentation programs showed high-quality accuracy and provided standardization and efficient support for guideline-based target volume contouring as a precondition for fully automated workflows in radiotherapy treatment planning.
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.