ArticleJournal of applied clinical medical physics2025
Clinical feasibility of atlas-based auto-segmentation for organ-at-risk contouring in head-and-neck radiotherapy.
Article in Journal of applied clinical medical physics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Clinical feasibility of atlas-based auto-segmentation for organ-at-risk contouring in head-and-neck radiotherapy.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeHead-and-neck (HN) contouring presents significant challenges due to the complex anatomy of the region and the proximity of organs-at-risk (OARs) to the target. Manual contouring is time-consuming, labor-intensive, and prone to inter- and intra-observer variability. Additionally, contours delineated prior to treatment may not accurately reflect the patient's anatomy over the extended treatment course. This study explores the feasibility of using auto-generated OAR contours in HN planning.
methodsA retrospective study was conducted on 20 patients, each with a planning CT and 35 CBCT images. OARs were manually delineated and automatically generated using atlas-based segmentation algorithms on planning CTs. Treatment plans were created via a novel two-step optimization process, incorporating a knowledge-based planning solution for both auto-generated (aOAR-plan) and manual OARs (mOAR-plan). The accuracy of auto-generated contours was quantified using the overlap index (OI) and dose similarity coefficient (DSC). Planning dose comparisons were performed between aOAR- and mOAR-plans. Additionally, planning doses were transferred from CT to CBCTs based on clinical shifts, and contour-based deformable registration was employed to calculate cumulative doses. Cumulative dose evaluations were performed for serial organs and parallel organs that can be fully imaged within the CBCT field.
resultsFor OARs located farther from the target, even though atlas-based segmentation could not accurately reproduce patient anatomy, excellent agreement in planning doses was observed between the aOAR- and mOAR-plans. The average OI/DSC between manual and auto-generated contours were 85.0% ± 5.4%/87.4% ± 2.6% for the larynx, 76.0% ± 9.3%/77.0% ± 5.8% for the pharynx, 89.9% ± 4.0%/87.8% ± 2.5% for the oral cavity, 81.5% ± 10.5%/78.2% ± 5.9% and 83.2% ± 10.6%/77.8% ± 7.5% for the left and right parotid, respectively. The cumulative dose differences for OARs between aOAR- and mOAR-plans were within 2 Gy for 90% of patients studied.
conclusionAutomated-contouring tools offer improvement in contour consistency, provide acceptable doses compared with manually drawn contours in HN radiotherapy.
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.