ArticleRadiological physics and technology2026
A comparative evaluation of commercial software programs for automatic segmentation in breast cancer radiotherapy planning.
Article in Radiological physics and technology, 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.
- A comparative evaluation of commercial software programs for automatic segmentation in breast cancer radiotherapy planning.Radiological physics and technology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Commercial software tools for automatic segmentation have been adopted in breast cancer radiotherapy planning. In this study, we directly compared commercial software programs for single-atlas-based segmentation (SABS), multi-atlas-based segmentation (MABS), and deep-learning-based segmentation (DLBS) on the ipsilateral breast using Eclipse v16, RayStation 16, and syngo.via RT Image Suite VB80G, respectively. Thirty previously registered atlases were stratified into three equal groups based on the mean bilateral breast height. An additional 20 patients with breast cancer who underwent radiotherapy after breast-conserving surgery were included retrospectively. For MABS, a parameter-matched tertile dataset was selected for each of the 20 test cases. For SABS, three of the 30 atlases were registered, and one of the registered atlases was selected for each test case by considering both nipple position and breast height. Manual segmentation was independently performed by two radiation oncologists. The Dice similarity coefficient (DSC) was used to assess agreement between two observers and between manual and automatic segmentations. The Friedman test was used to compare the DSC values of the automatic methods. The median DSC for interobserver agreement was 0.92. Although DSC values obtained using SABS were significantly lower than those of the other methods, its computation time was the shortest among the automatic methods. Despite the requirement for atlas datasets, MABS exhibited DSC values comparable to those of DLBS, with median DSC values of approximately 0.9 obtained in both methods. Clinical implementation can be optimized according to individual institutional requirements by understanding the strengths and limitations of each method.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41886047What 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.