ArticleJournal of applied clinical medical physics2026
Can physics review catch prescription and PTV margin errors in fully automated radiotherapy plans? A hazard study.
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeEnd-to-end AI-based automated contouring and radiotherapy planning systems promise substantial gains in efficiency and consistency but also introduce new safety risks, including user input errors that occur early in the workflow. This study evaluates the ability of standard physics plan review to detect user errors in prescription and planning target volume (PTV) margin entry in a fully automated planning workflow.
methodsA prototype of the Radiation Planning Assistant (RPA) was used to generate fully automated prostate cancer treatment plans for 20 patients. Five cases intentionally included incorrect prescriptions or non-standard PTV margins. Five clinical medical physicists independently performed physics plan reviews in a commercial treatment planning system, assuming a standard clinical workflow and without access to user guides or service request forms. Reviews were conducted in two phases, with and without margin information embedded in structure names. A third phase evaluated whether adding reference expansion structures improved margin error detection.
resultsIncorrect prescriptions were detected in 80% of cases, with no false-positive identification of correct prescriptions. In contrast, detection of incorrect PTV margins was highly inconsistent. Two physicists did not evaluate margins and missed all margin errors. Three physicists identified all intentional margin errors but demonstrated poor specificity, frequently flagging correct cases as incorrect (specificity range: 13%-63%). Including margin information in structure names and adding reference expansion structures did not improve specificity or overall detection performance.
conclusionsPhysics plan review was unreliable for detecting incorrect PTV margins in a fully automated planning workflow, even when additional cues were provided. Although based on a limited dataset, these findings indicate that traditional plan review processes alone are insufficient to mitigate this failure mode. Alternative risk-reduction strategies-such as timely workflow-embedded alerts, targeted checklists, automated verification tools, and careful expectation setting-are likely required to improve safety in AI-driven radiotherapy planning systems.
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.