ArticleAdvances in radiation oncology2026
A Comparative, Multiobserver Analysis of Nodal Contouring Methods in Pelvic Online Cone Beam-Based Adaptive Radiation Therapy.
Article in Advances in radiation oncology, 2026. 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: In online cone beam computed tomography (CBCT)-based adaptive radiation therapy (ART), nodal recontouring ensures sufficient nodal coverage by accounting for anatomic change but is uniquely challenging due to small target size and time pressure. This study evaluates the accuracy of rigid propagation versus artificial intelligence-guided deformation (AID) for nodal autosegmentation via comparison to nodal recontours delineated with unlimited time (ie, benchmark contours). Methods and Materials: We analyzed 25 nodal structures from 16 patients receiving pelvic online CBCT-based ART with nodal boost. Nodal structure sampling was informed by an initial power analysis. For each structure, we obtained rigidly propagated and AID-generated contours in addition to 2 benchmark contours and the clinical contour used in adapted plan generation. We calculated dice similarity coefficient (DSC), false-positive dice, false-negative dice, and 95% Hausdorff distance (HD95) between clinical, propagated, and AID contours against benchmark pairs and DSC and HD95 between benchmark pairs. The failure rate of nonbenchmark contours relative to benchmark pairs was calculated as the proportion of contours with an HD95 > 5 mm. We calculated the normalized D100, normalized D95, V100, and V95 of the adapted plan dose over all contours. Clinical tumor volume contours were used for all comparisons. Results: Median DSC versus benchmark contours were 0.68 for rigidly propagated and 0.58 for AID contours. A significant difference in false-negative dice ( Conclusions: Rigid propagation is superior to AID for initial contour generation in pelvic CBCT-based ART. Increased contouring time and image quality may improve contour quality and reduce interobserver variability but may be limited by the influence of individual contouring preferences.
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.