ArticleActa oncologica (Stockholm, Sweden)2025
Time efficiency, geometric accuracy, and clinical impact of AI-assisted contouring of organs at risk in head and neck cancer radiotherapy.
Article in Acta oncologica (Stockholm, Sweden), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- AI-Based Dose Compliance of Secondary Organs at Risk in Head and Neck Cancer Radiotherapy.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Deep Learning (nnU-Net)-Based Segmentation of Primary HPV-Positive OPSCC: Contrast-Enhanced T1-Weighted Fat-Suppressed Versus Non-Contrast-Enhanced T2-Weighted Fat-Suppressed MRI (Paired Single-Center Study).Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
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
background and purposeEnsuring the reliability and accuracy of artificial intelligence (AI)-generated contours is paramount, as discrepancies could lead to inadequate protection of healthy tissues. With increasing clinical workload, the aim of this study was to assess the time-saving potential of AI-assisted organs at risk (OAR) contouring in head and neck cancer (HNC) treatment planning, while also evaluating geometric accuracy, variability, and dosimetric impact. Patient/material and methods: Twenty patients had 12 OAR contoured by 11 certified dosimetrists and ARTplan (Therapanacea), including the brainstem, cochleas, larynx, mandible, oral cavity, parotid glands, pharynx constrictor muscles, spinal cord, right submandibular gland and thyroid gland. Comparisons were made using geometrical metrics, including Mean Surface Distance, Dice Similarity Coefficient (DSC), Hausdorff Distance, Volume Difference, and Centre of Mass Difference, as well as relevant dose-volume metrics, and total contouring time.
resultsMedian manual contouring time of the OARs was 55 (range: 17-151) minutes per patient, while adjusted AI-based structures required 17 (7-42), resulting in 69% time saved. For manual, adjusted and AI-contours, the mean DSC were generally high, averaging 0.85, 0.86, and 0.81 respectively across the evaluated structures. Notably, variability was lowest for the AI and adjusted contours. Average mean and max dose differences were acceptably low (<3.2 Gy) for all OARs.
interpretationThe results support the integration of AI-based contouring in HNC treatment planning. With minor adjustments, the contours achieve very good clinical quality and demonstrate improved consistency compared to manual contours, while significantly reducing contouring time.
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.