ArticleThe British journal of radiology2026
A multi-centre real-world evaluation of AI-assisted organ at risk contouring on radiotherapy treatment planning workflows.
Article in The British journal of radiology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
18 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesThis multicentre real-world evaluation, commissioned by NHS England, evaluated the impact of AI-assisted contouring of organs at risk on contour acceptability, workflows, and staffing.
methodsData from 626 patients were collected from eight NHS radiotherapy departments. Time metrics from the date of planning CT scan to the start of first treatment were compared between manual and AI-enabled pathways. Acceptability scores for AI-generated contours were also collected.
resultsAI-assisted contouring increased potential efficiency in treatment planning compared to manual methods, reducing time for contouring and redistributing workload across different staff types. 100% of manual contour reviews involved clinical oncologists compared to 38% reviewing AI-generated contours. However, workflow design meant that time saving was not observed across the whole treatment planning pathway. AI contours were generally well accepted, with 15.9% requiring no edits and 64.4% only minor edits. This varied by anatomy, with breast having the best acceptability and prostate and head and neck contours requiring more editing.
conclusionsAI contouring tools have the potential to enhance efficiency in radiotherapy treatment planning, creating operational flexibility. Pathway review and revision could unlock further benefits, for example, involving different staff types to address local bottlenecks. Workflow, capacity, and staffing review pre- and post-implementation could increase efficiency gains with AI-assisted contouring. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: This study evaluated AI contouring tools in complex, real-world systems which differ between departments for generalizable conclusions. It describes the changes in time across the whole treatment planning pathway and the system-level impact of using AI tools to help inform holistic planning.
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.