Cited by 59Advanced Radiotherapy TechniquesClinical practice guidelines implementationAdvances in Oncology and Radiotherapy

A Systematic Review of Contouring Guidelines in Radiation Oncology: Analysis of Frequency, Methodology, and Delivery of Consensus Recommendations

Open access
Lin, Diana, Lapen, Kaitlyn, Sherer, Michael V., Kantor, Jolie, Zhang, Zhigang, Boyce, Lindsay M., Bosch, Walter, Korenstein, Deborah +1 more·2020·International Journal of Radiation Oncology*Biology*Physics

Abstract

Purpose Clinical trials have described variation in radiation therapy plan quality, of which contour delineation is a key component, and linked this to inferior patient outcomes. In response, consensus guidelines have been developed to standardize contour delineation. This investigation assesses trends in contouring guidelines and examines the methodologies used to generate and deliver recommendations. Methods and materials We conducted a literature search for contouring guidelines published after 1995. Of 11,124 citations, 332 were identified for full-text review to determine inclusion. We abstracted articles for the intent of the consensus process, key elements of the methodology, and mode of information delivery. A Fisher exact test was used to identify elements that differed among the guidelines generated for clinical trials and routine care. Results Overall, 142 guidelines were included, of which 16 (11%) were developed for a clinical trial. There was an increase in guideline publication over time (0 from 1995-1999 vs 65 from 2015- 2019; P = .03), particularly among recommendations for stereotactic radiation and brachytherapy. The most common disease sites were head and neck (24%), gastrointestinal (12%), and gynecologic (12%). Methods used to develop recommendations included literature review (50%) and image-based methods (45%). Panels included a median of 10 physicians (interquartile range, 7-16); 70% of panels represented multidisciplinary expertise. Guidelines developed for a clinical trial were more likely to include an image-based approach, with quantitative analysis of contours submitted by the panel members and to publish a full set of image-based recommendations (P < .005). Conclusions This review highlights an increase in consensus contouring recommendations over time. Guidelines focus on disease sites, such as head and neck, with evidence supporting a correlation between treatment planning and patient outcomes, although variation exists in the approach to the consensus process. Elements that may improve guideline acceptance (ie, image-based consensus contour analysis) and usability (ie, inclusion of a full image set) are more common in guidelines developed for clinical trials.

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.2020.04.011

Cites

47 of 47 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The training data spans 2001-2019, a period over which contouring practices changed substantially.

    “The training data spans 2001–2019, a period over which contouring practices changed substantially. 35”

    From Uncertainty quantification of U‐Net based segmentation tool using conformal prediction (2026) · cites this paper as [35]

    The Results (‘Trends over time’; page unavailable) document a substantial increase in contouring guidelines through 2019, and the Conclusions link that increase to growing radiation-treatment complexity. This supports a changing contouring context, but the review does not establish that contouring practices themselves changed substantially over 2001–2019. It also does not describe the citing authors’ training data. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 48 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Lin, D., Lapen, K., Sherer, M. V., Kantor, J., Zhang, Z., Boyce, L. M., Bosch, W., Korenstein, D., & Gillespie, E. F.
Affiliations
  • Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (US)
  • University of California San Diego (US)
  • Washington University in St. Louis (US)
Corresponding author
Gillespie, Erin F.
Venue
International Journal of Radiation Oncology*Biology*Physics
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2020-07
Volume
107
Issue
4
Pages
827-835
ISSN
0360-3016 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3017386006
Cited by
59
References
48
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 14 · 2024: 16 · 2023: 15 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 2
FWCI
0.69
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • International Journal of Radiation Oncology*Biology*Physics (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center
  • American College of Radiation Oncology
  • Radiological Society of North America
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Radiation › Advanced Radiotherapy Techniques
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Clinical practice guidelines implementation
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Advances in Oncology and Radiotherapy
Keywords
contour delineation, radiotherapy treatment planning, consensus recommendations, clinical trial design, stereotactic body radiotherapy, brachytherapy, head and neck cancer, guideline development methodology
MeSH terms
Humans, Radiotherapy Planning, Computer-Assisted, Practice Guidelines as Topic, Radiation Oncology, Consensus

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