ArticleCureus2025
Dosimetric Comparison of Organs At Risk Between Artificial Intelligence-Based Auto-Contouring and Manual Contouring for High-Risk Prostate Cancer Radiotherapy: A Retrospective Study.
Article in Cureus, 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 edge-case stress testing of two Asia-developed AI auto-contouring systems using prostate radiotherapy planning CT images.Radiological physics and technology · 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and aim This study compared the dose volume histogram (DVH) parameters of the organs at risk (OARs) between an artificial intelligence (AI)-based auto-contouring method and conventional manually drawn contours in radiation treatment planning for high-risk prostate cancer. Methods Fifteen treatment plans for high-risk prostate cancer treated with 76 Gy in 38 fractions using volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) were retrospectively analyzed. For each patient, both manual contouring (MC) by an experienced radiation oncologist and automated contouring (AC) by OncoStudio (Oncosoft, Seoul, Republic of Korea) were performed, and then the DVH parameters of the OARs were compared between MC and AC. Primary outcome measures were dose constraints (V20 to V75) for the rectum, bladder, and the femoral heads. T-test statistical analysis was performed. Results The analysis showed no statistically significant differences between the MC and AC groups in all the DVH parameters for OARs (p>0.05). The mean difference in rectum V50 was 1.8% (95%CI: -0.87 to 4.47%, p=0.178), and the mean difference in bladder V70 was 1.6% (95%CI: -0.12 to 3.32%, p=0.067). The effect sizes R² ranged from 0.001 to 0.115, and the observed differences were small and clinically acceptable. Conclusion In high-risk prostate cancer radiotherapy planning, AC with OncoStudio demonstrated non-inferiority in the OARs dose assessment compared to MC. There were no statistically significant differences in the DVH parameters of all the OARs, and the observed differences were clinically acceptable. The introduction of AC is expected to streamline the OARs contouring process while maintaining clinical equivalence.
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.