ArticleCureus2026
Dosimetric Impact of Artificial Intelligence (AI)-Based Autocontouring Software, OncoStudio, in High-Risk Prostate Cancer Treatment Planning: A Three-Group Comparative Study on the Slice Ranges of Seminal Vesicles.
Article in Cureus, 2026. 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.
- AI-driven precision diagnosis and treatment of prostate cancer: a narrative review.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis pilot study investigated the dosimetric impact of artificial intelligence (AI)-generated seminal vesicle (SV) autocontouring (AC) compared with manual contouring (MC) in high-risk prostate cancer volumetric-modulated arc therapy planning.
methodsWe retrospectively analyzed treatment plans for 15 patients with high-risk prostate cancer who received 76 Gy in 38 fractions in intensity-modulated radiation therapy. Three plans were created for each patient: MC, AC with slice-adjustment to a clinical standard (2 cm from the prostate base), and unadjusted AC. Subsequently, three groups were made for each contouring method: the adjusted AC group, the unadjusted AC group, and the MC group, each including 15 plans. Primary endpoints were dose coverage of the planning target volume (PTV) and clinical target volume (CTV), evaluated by Dmax, Dmin, Dmean, D95, D98, D99, and V95%. Statistical analysis was performed using Dunnett's test, and multiple comparisons were made by selecting the MC as the control group.
resultsCTV Dmean showed a tendency to be lower in the unadjusted AC group compared with the MC group, but did not reach statistical significance (difference: -58.7 cGy, 95% confidence interval (CI): -123.0 to 5.5 cGy, p = 0.077, Hedges' g = 0.78). PTV Dmean also showed a decreasing tendency in the unadjusted AC group, but similarly did not reach statistical significance (difference: -92.8 cGy, 95% CI: -193.6 to 8.0 cGy, p = 0.075, g = 0.67). In the adjusted AC group, there was a slight tendency for a decrease in CTV Dmean, but this did not reach statistical significance (difference: -41.3 cGy, p = 0.254, g = 0.63). Effect size assessment revealed a moderate effect in both the unadjusted and the adjusted AC groups. No statistically significant differences were observed among the three groups in any dose volume histogram parameters.
conclusionThis preliminary study (n = 15) suggests no statistically significant dosimetric differences between AI autocontoured and manually contoured SVs, with dose differences <1% of the prescription. However, given the small sample size, validation in larger cohorts is needed before clinical implementation.
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.