Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41886047›Full record

ArticleRadiological physics and technology2026

A comparative evaluation of commercial software programs for automatic segmentation in breast cancer radiotherapy planning.

Anri Minamitake, Ryuji Murakami, Yasuhiro Doi, Takahiro Watakabe, Masato Maruyama, Kosuke Morita, Natsuo Oya

Abstract readComparative StudyEvaluation Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
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

7 authors.

Anri MinamitakeGraduate School of Health Sciences, Kumamoto University, 4-24-1 Kuhonji, Chuo-ku, Kumamoto, Kumamoto, 862-0976, Japan.
Ryuji MurakamiDepartment of Radiation Therapy Technology, Faculty of Life Sciences, Kumamoto University, 4-24-1 Kuhonji, Chuo-ku, Kumamoto, Kumamoto, 862-0976, Japan. murakami@kumamoto-u.ac.jp.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8432-7988
Yasuhiro DoiMedical Radiology Technology Department, Kumamoto University Hospital, 1-1-1 Honjo, Chuo-ku, Kumamoto, Kumamoto, 860-8556, Japan.
Takahiro WatakabeDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Faculty of Life Sciences, Kumamoto University, 1-1-1 Honjo, Chuo-ku, Kumamoto, Kumamoto, 860-8556, Japan.
Masato MaruyamaMedical Radiology Technology Department, Kumamoto University Hospital, 1-1-1 Honjo, Chuo-ku, Kumamoto, Kumamoto, 860-8556, Japan.
Kosuke MoritaMedical Radiology Technology Department, Kumamoto University Hospital, 1-1-1 Honjo, Chuo-ku, Kumamoto, Kumamoto, 860-8556, Japan.
Natsuo OyaDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Faculty of Life Sciences, Kumamoto University, 1-1-1 Honjo, Chuo-ku, Kumamoto, Kumamoto, 860-8556, Japan.

Funding

Hitachi High-Tech Corporation Hitachi High-Tech CorporationNIHON DENSHI OHYO CO.,LTD. NIHON DENSHI OHYO CO.,LTD.
6 · The paper itself

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

Breast NeoplasmsImage Processing, Computer-AssistedRadiotherapy Planning, Computer-AssistedSoftwareAutomationFemaleHumansAtlas-based segmentation (ABS)Breast cancerDeep-learning-based segmentation (DLBS)Dice similarity coefficient (DSC)Multi-atlas-based segmentation (MABS)Radiotherapy (RT) planning

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.