ArticleJournal of applied clinical medical physics2026
Real-world clinical impact of implementing and updating a deep learning-based automatic contouring system in rectal cancer radiotherapy.
Article in Journal of applied clinical medical physics, 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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAccurate delineation of target volumes and organs-at-risk (OARs) is a critical yet labor-intensive component of rectal cancer radiotherapy. While deep learning (DL)-based automatic contouring systems are increasingly used to address inter-observer variability and improve efficiency, artificial intelligence models require rigorous quality assurance and updates to reflect current technology. However, high-level evidence regarding the longitudinal real-world impact of implementing and iteratively updating these systems in clinical workflows is currently lacking. PURPOSE: This study aimed to evaluate the real-world clinical impact of implementing and updating a DL-based automatic contouring system in rectal cancer radiotherapy to generate high-quality evidence of iterative updates.
methodsThis longitudinal retrospective analysis included 150 patients divided into three cohorts: pre-implementation (n1 = 50), post-implementation (n2 = 50), and post-update (n3 = 50). Geometric similarities between unedited-automatic and final treatment contours were compared across cohorts. Failure rates were systematically analyzed. Six oncologists contoured 21 additional cases through manual, first-generation (Auto1), and second-generation (Auto2) system-assisted methods to evaluate contouring time, inter-observer consistency, and accuracy. Additionally, a 5-point Likert scale was used by two blinded senior oncologists to assess the clinical acceptability of the generated contours.
resultsThe mean Dice similarity coefficient (DSC) values of clinical target volume (CTV) before and after implementing the automatic contouring system were 0.87 ± 0.04 and 0.88 ± 0.04 (P = 0.067), while those of OARs were 0.80 ± 0.06 and 0.88 ± 0.05 (P < 0.001), respectively. Following the system update, they improved from 0.88 ± 0.04 to 0.93 ± 0.04 for CTV (P < 0.001) and from 0.88 ± 0.05 to 0.95 ± 0.02 for OARs (P < 0.001). The system update achieved an approximately 80.6% reduction in the mean failure rate. Auto2-assisted method decreased the total time by approximately 58.8% compared with the manual method, and 21.9% compared with the Auto1-assisted method. This method also demonstrated optimal inter-observer consistency (0.95 ± 0.03) and accuracy (0.94 ± 0.03) for CTV. In the blinded clinical evaluation, 99.2% (125/126) of the oncologist-revised final contours received a Likert score of ≥ 4, and Auto2-generated unedited contours showed significantly higher clinical acceptability than Auto1 (4.02 ± 0.25 vs. 3.26 ± 0.49, P < 0.001)
conclusionsImplementing an automatic contouring system provided crucial guidance for clinical practice. Its iterative update significantly reduced workload and inter-observer variation while enhancing contouring efficiency and quality.
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.