Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41859029›Full record

ReviewClinical and translational radiation oncology2026

Inter-observer variability in radiotherapy contouring with the use of autocontouring software: A systematic review.

Polly Darby, Emily Kilgour, Chee Kin Then, Andrew Bromiley, John McLellan, Anne E Kiltie

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Clinical and translational radiation oncology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Polly DarbyDepartment of Radiotherapy Physics, NHS Grampian, Aberdeen, Scotland, UK.
Emily KilgourDepartment of Radiotherapy Physics, NHS Grampian, Aberdeen, Scotland, UK.
Chee Kin ThenDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Shuang Ho Hospital, Taipei Medical University, New Taipei City, Taiwan.
Andrew BromileyDepartment of Radiotherapy Physics, NHS Grampian, Aberdeen, Scotland, UK.
John McLellanDepartment of Radiotherapy Physics, NHS Grampian, Aberdeen, Scotland, UK.
Anne E KiltieRowett Institute, School of Medicine, Medical Sciences, and Nutrition, University of Aberdeen, Scotland, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Inter-observer variability (IOV) in radiotherapy contouring remains a significant source of uncertainty, especially for complex anatomical regions. Autocontouring software, including both atlas-based and deep-learning-based models, aims to improve contouring consistency and reduce workload. A systematic review was conducted in accordance with PRISMA guidelines to evaluate the impact of autocontouring software on IOV. Twenty-five eligible studies were identified that quantitatively assessed IOV using these tools. Extracted data included anatomical site, observer and case numbers, contouring method and evaluation metrics. Most studies reported significant reductions in IOV with the use of autocontouring. Edited autocontours frequently achieved mean Dice Similarity Coefficient (DSC) values above 0.85 for clinical and planning target volumes and 0.90 for organs at risk (OARs) with well-defined anatomy, using deep learning methods. Deep-learning-based models demonstrated greater consistency compared to atlas-based methods. Structures such as the lungs, heart and bladder showed the most substantial improvements, while anatomically indistinct targets such as the prostate bed and pelvic lymph nodes showed limited benefit. However, discrepancies remained between observers for certain structures despite the use of automation. Overall, autocontouring tools, particularly deep-learning models, improve contouring consistency in radiotherapy planning. However, performance is strongly influenced by anatomical complexity and segmentation method. Larger multi-institutional studies and standardised evaluation protocols are needed to support widespread clinical adoption and strengthen quality assurance.

Indexed as

Computer-assistedDeep learningObserver variationRadiotherapyRadiotherapy planningSoftware

Identifiers

PMID41859029
PMCPMC12996195

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.