ArticleThe British journal of radiology2026
Automatic segmentation of clinical target volume for radiation therapy in breast-conserving patients and exploration of clinical factors influential to its performance.
Article in The British journal of radiology, 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
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesTo develop and validate a deep learning model for whole breast clinical target volume (CTV) contouring and evaluate clinical features affecting its performance.
methodsFive datasets with 857 patients from a single center were used. Dataset 1 (n = 300) trained and tested the model. Dataset 2 (n = 10) evaluated contouring time and dosimetric parameters. Datasets 3 (n = 20) and 4 (n = 10) were for clinical evaluation. Dataset 5 (n = 517) identified clinical factors influencing auto-contouring accuracy. Model performance was assessed using Dice Similarity Coefficient (DSC) and 95th percentile Hausdorff Distance (HD95).
resultsThe median DSC and HD95 for left- and right-sided models in Dataset 1 were 0.941, 1.75 mm and 0.937, 2.47 mm, respectively. In Dataset 2, both auto-contouring and auto-contouring with manual corrections were significantly faster than manual contouring (P = .005 for both), while still achieving clinically acceptable dosimetric results. In Dataset 3, two physicians rated automatic and manual contours as equivalent (P = .214, P = .075), while the other rated auto-contouring higher (P < .001). In Dataset 4, the auto-contouring model outperformed 1/5 physicians by DSC (P = .009) and 3/5 by HD95 (P = .015, P = .007, P = .017). In Dataset 5, peripheral tumor-bed and low-density breast tissue were associated with lower DSC (P < .001 for both) and higher HD95 (P < .001 for both). Cases without unfavorable factors performed better than those with (P < .001 for both).
conclusionsThe proposed model demonstrated acceptable accuracy, consistency, and efficiency in breast CTV contouring. Peripheral tumor-bed and low-density breast tissue reduced auto-contouring performance. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: The characteristics of challenging cases in whole breast CTV auto-contouring should be identified.
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.