ReviewClinical and translational radiation oncology2026
Inter-observer variability in radiotherapy contouring with the use of autocontouring software: A systematic review.
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.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Clinical evaluation of three deep learning contouring models for head and neck organs at risk and lymph node levels.Technical innovations & patient support in radiation oncology · 2026Article
- Optimizing the delivery of radiotherapy with artificial intelligence.Nature reviews. Clinical 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.