ArticleRadiation oncology (London, England)2025
CT-based auto-segmentation of multiple target volumes for all-in-one radiotherapy in rectal cancer patients.
Article in Radiation oncology (London, England), 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
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThis study aimed to evaluate the clinical feasibility and performance of CT-based auto-segmentation models integrated into an All-in-One radiotherapy workflow for rectal cancer.
methodsThis study included 312 rectal cancer patients, with 272 used to train three nnU-Net models for CTV45, CTV50, and GTV segmentation, and 40 for evaluation across one internal (n = 10), one clinical AIO (n = 10), and two external cohorts (n = 10 each). Segmentation accuracy (DSC, HD, HD95, ASSD, ASD) and time efficiency were assessed.
resultsIn the internal testing set, mean DSC of CTV45, CTV50, and GTV were 0.90, 0.86, and 0.71; HD were 17.08, 25.48, and 79.59 mm; HD 95 were 4.89, 7.33, and 56.49 mm; ASSD were 1.23, 1.90, and 6.69 mm; and ASD were 1.24, 1.58, and 11.61 mm. Auto-segmentation reduced manual delineation time by 63.3–88.3% (p < 0.0001). In clinical practice, average DSC of CTV45, CTV50 and GTV were 0.93, 0.88, and 0.78; HD were 13.56, 23.84, and 35.38 mm; HD 95 were 3.33, 6.46, and 21.34 mm; ASSD were 0.78, 1.49, and 3.30 mm; and ASD were 0.74, 1.18, and 2.13 mm. The results from the multi-center testing also showed applicability of these models, since the average DSC of CTV45 and GTV were 0.84 and 0.80 respectively.
conclusionsThe models demonstrated high accuracy and clinical utility, effectively streamlining target volume delineation and reducing manual workload in routine practice.
trial registrationThe study protocol was approved by the Institutional Review Board of Peking University Third Hospital (Approval No. (2024) Medical Ethics Review No. 182-01).
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.