Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 382

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Variability of Target and Normal Structure Delineation for Breast Cancer Radiotherapy: An RTOG Multi-Institutional and Multiobserver Study

Open access
Li, X. Allen, Tai, An, Arthur, Douglas W., Buchholz, Thomas A., Macdonald, Shannon, Marks, Lawrence B., Moran, Jean M., Pierce, Lori J., Rabinovitch, Rachel, Taghian, Alphonse, Vicini, Frank, Woodward, Wendy, White, Julia R.·2009·International Journal of Radiation Oncology*Biology*Physics

Abstract

Purpose To quantify the multi-institutional and multi-observer variability of target and organ-at-risk (OAR) delineation for breast-cancer radiotherapy (RT), and its dosimetric impacts, as the first step of a RTOG effort to establish a breast cancer atlas. Methods and Materials Nine radiation oncologists specializing in breast RT from eight institutions independently delineated targets (e.g., lumpectomy cavity, boost planning target volume, breast, supraclavicular, axillary and internal mammary nodes, and chest wall) and OARs (e.g., heart, lung) on the same CT images of three representative patients with breast cancer. Inter-observer differences in structure delineation were quantified with regard to volume, distance between centers of mass, percent overlap, and average surface distance. The mean, median and standard deviation for these quantities were calculated for all possible combinations. To asses the impact of these variations on treatment planning, representative dosimetric plans based on observer-specific contours were generated. Results The variability in contouring the targets and OARs between the institutions/observers was substantial. The structure overlaps were as low as 10% and the volume variations had standard deviations up to 60%. The large variability was related both to differences in opinion regarding target and OAR boundaries as well as approach to incorporation of setup uncertainty and dosimetric limitations in target delineation. These inter-observer differences result in substantial variations in dosimetric planning for breast RT. Conclusions The differences in target and OAR delineation for breast irradiation between institutions/observers appear to be clinically and dosimetrically significant. A systematic consensus is highly desirable, particularly in the era of IMRT/IGRT.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2008.10.034

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 382

Metadata

Authors
Li, X. A., Tai, A., Arthur, D. W., Buchholz, T. A., Macdonald, S., Marks, L. B., Moran, J. M., Pierce, L. J., Rabinovitch, R., Taghian, A., Vicini, F., Woodward, W., & White, J. R.
Venue
International Journal of Radiation Oncology*Biology*Physics
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2009-03
Volume
73
Issue
3
Pages
944-951
ISSN
0360-3016 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1970483105
Cited by
382
References
0
FWCI
19.80
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Variability of Target and Normal Structure Delineation for Breast Cancer Radiotherapy: An RTOG Multi-Institutional and Multiobserver Study. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2008.10.034
The paper
Li, X. A., Tai, A., Arthur, D. W., Buchholz, T. A., Macdonald, S., Marks, L. B., Moran, J. M., Pierce, L. J., Rabinovitch, R., Taghian, A., Vicini, F., Woodward, W., & White, J. R. (2009). Variability of Target and Normal Structure Delineation for Breast Cancer Radiotherapy: An RTOG Multi-Institutional and Multiobserver Study. International Journal of Radiation Oncology*Biology*Physics. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2008.10.034

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.