Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42111056›Full record

ArticlePhysics and imaging in radiation oncology2026

The impact of DICOM import/export on radiotherapy structures in commercial systems.

Mark J Gooding, Annamieke Koops, Ciaran Malone, David Nash, Maxwell Robinson, Daniel Rossiter, Rita Simões, Christina Skourou, Georgios Tsekas, Kieran Venner and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Physics and imaging in radiation oncology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

11 authors.

Mark J GoodingInpictura Limited, Abingdon, United Kingdom.
Annamieke KoopsDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, Netherlands.
Ciaran MaloneSt. Luke's Radiation Oncology Network, St. Luke's Hospital, Dublin, Ireland.
David NashDepartment of Medical Physics, Portsmouth Hospitals University NHS Trust, Portsmouth, United Kingdom.
Maxwell RobinsonDepartment of Oncology, Oxford University Hospitals NHS Trust, Oxford, United Kingdom.
Daniel RossiterSt. Luke's Radiation Oncology Network, St. Luke's Hospital, Dublin, Ireland.
Rita SimõesDepartment of Radiation Oncology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Christina SkourouSt. Luke's Radiation Oncology Network, St. Luke's Hospital, Dublin, Ireland.
Georgios TsekasDepartment of Radiation Oncology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Kieran VennerDepartment of Oncology, Oxford University Hospitals NHS Trust, Oxford, United Kingdom.
Djamal BoukerrouiInpictura Limited, Abingdon, United Kingdom.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

background and purposeTo investigate the impact that loading contours into an internal representation and saving them back to DICOM format has on contour position within commercially available contouring systems. MATERIALS AND

methodsTwo DICOM RT Structure Sets (RTSS) were loaded into 12 different commercial contour editing systems. Small non-editing actions were taken to prompt the systems to convert the structures to their internal representation. Contours were exported again as DICOM RTSS. The exported contours were compared to the original contours. The impact on contour similarity measures was quantified by their calculation against a common reference set for both the original and the re-exported contours.

resultsAverage distances up to 0.23 mm were observed between the original and re-exported contours on thoracic data for some systems, with maximum distances up to 37.7 mm resulting from topological changes. Contour boundary changes impacted contouring similarity measures up to 2.6%, 29%, 35% and 21% for volumetric Dice Similarity Coefficient, 2D Mean Surface Distance, 3D Mean Surface Distance, and Hausdorff Distance, respectively. Notably, Surface Dice Similarity Coefficient and Normalised Added Path Length varied up to 96% and 97% respectively at low tolerances. Other systems preserved the original contours.

conclusionsCaution should be employed when comparing contouring accuracy measures between studies or within multi-centre evaluations if different contouring systems have been used. For monitoring auto-contouring in clinical practice, differences between automatic and clinical contours smaller than one quarter of the in-plane voxel size can be disregarded, as possibly reflecting software-related effects rather than intentional editing.

Indexed as

Auto-contouringCommercial softwareContouringContour representationContour similarity measuresDICOM

Identifiers

PMID42111056
PMCPMC13157206

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.