ArticleFrontiers in medicine2026
Impacts of volumetric vs. anatomical accuracies in GTV segmentation for nasopharyngeal carcinoma: a consensus-guideline-based study.
Article in Frontiers in medicine, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Consensus guidelines for target volume segmentation have been issued for nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) radiotherapy, yet prior studies have largely overlooked anatomical accuracy in this context. Methods: Sixteen NPC patients were enrolled. GTVnx and prophylactic clinical target volume of primary tumor (CTVp) were independently contoured by three radiation oncologists and one senior radiologist to obtain observer segmentations (OSs) and reference GTVnx. Original CTVp of OS were adjusted according to reference GTVnx. CTVp consistency was evaluated with Dice Similarity Coefficient (DSC), 95th Hausdorff Distance (HD95) and Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC). Impacts of volumetric and anatomical accuracy were evaluated with precision and true positive rate (TPR), dosimetric parameters and tumor control probability (TCP). Results: Anatomical accuracy was strikingly high (median anatomical TPR: 89.5%-100%; precision: 80%-92%), volumetric accuracy was substantially lower (median volumetric TPR: 63.88%-73.92%; precision: 47.08%-70.29%). Tiny differences were observed in CTVp consistency between original and adjusted CTVp (Median DSC: 0.84 vs. 0.85, Median HD95: 6.53 vs. 6.27 mm, ICC: 0.98 vs. 0.99), which were both higher than that of GTVnx consistency across OSs (Median DSC: 0.63, Median HD95: 8.21 mm, ICC: 0.92). Treatment plans based on OS resulted in decreased D95, EUD and TCP (average decrease of D95, EUD and TCP: 7.38 Gy, 5.24 Gy and 17.13%). Conclusions: In NPC, primary tumor segmentation inaccuracies are predominantly volumetric rather than anatomical. Low volumetric accuracy may potentially reduce TCP. Under consensus guidelines, high anatomical accuracy in GTVnx segmentation may contribute to consistent CTVp segmentation.
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.