ArticleCureus2025
Evaluation of Specific Contour Propagation Tool Accuracy for Lung Tumor Lesions.
Article in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
introductionAdapt Anatomy is an automatic propagation tool installed in the Monaco
methodsTen patients with lung cancer were treated at our hospital, and treatment plans were formulated again during the radiotherapy course. Each patient's gross tumor volume (GTV), lung, cord, heart, and esophagus were contoured manually by radiation oncologists and automatically by Adapt Anatomy on replanning computed tomography (rCT) images. The structures were also contoured on cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) images obtained on the same days as the rCT images, using Adapt Anatomy. The structural volumes contoured using Adapt Anatomy were compared with those contoured by the radiation oncologists. The dice similarity coefficient (DSC) and overlap index (OI) were calculated for each structure. Additionally, the DSC and OI calculated for the GTV on the CBCT images were compared with the values calculated from the rCT images.
resultsThe automatic contour volumes for all of the structures did not differ significantly from the manual contour volumes, except for heart and esophagus volumes. The DSC and OI values for all of the structures were >0.8, except for the esophagus. The DSC and OI values for the esophagus were 0.73±0.070 and 0.68±0.10, respectively. The DSC and OI values calculated for the CBCT images did not differ significantly from those calculated for the rCT ones (p=0.208, 0.401, respectively).
conclusionAdapt Anatomy showed sufficient accuracy compared to the other software solutions, and we concluded that there is a possibility that Adapt Anatomy may be useful for performing ART on CBCT images. However, careful reviews by radiation oncologists are warranted in clinical cases because its accuracy varies significantly in certain structures such as the esophagus.
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.