Cited by 308Advanced Radiotherapy TechniquesMedical Image Segmentation TechniquesRadiation Dose and Imaging

A cardiac contouring atlas for radiotherapy

Open access
Duane, Frances, Aznar, Marianne C., Bartlett, Freddie, Cutter, David J., Darby, Sarah C., Jagsi, Reshma, Lorenzen, Ebbe L., McArdle, Orla +6 more·2017·Radiotherapy and Oncology

Abstract

Background and purpose The heart is a complex anatomical organ and contouring the cardiac substructures is challenging. This study presents a reproducible method for contouring left ventricular and coronary arterial segments on radiotherapy CT-planning scans. Material and methods Segments were defined from cardiology models and agreed by two cardiologists. Reference atlas contours were delineated and written guidelines prepared. Six radiation oncologists tested the atlas. Spatial variation was assessed using the DICE similarity coefficient (DSC) and the directed Hausdorff average distance ( d → H , avg ). The effect of spatial variation on doses was assessed using six different breast cancer regimens. Results The atlas enabled contouring of 15 cardiac segments. Inter-observer contour overlap (mean DSC) was 0.60–0.73 for five left ventricular segments and 0.10–0.53 for ten coronary arterial segments. Inter-observer contour separation (mean d → H , avg ) was 1.5–2.2mm for left ventricular segments and 1.3–5.1mm for coronary artery segments. This spatial variation resulted in <1Gy dose variation for most regimens and segments, but 1.2–21.8Gy variation for segments close to a field edge. Conclusions This cardiac atlas enables reproducible contouring of segments of the left ventricle and main coronary arteries to facilitate future studies relating cardiac radiation doses to clinical outcomes.

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.radonc.2017.01.008

Cites

24 of 24 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 heart is the hardest of the three structures to segment in breast radiotherapy data because it is not always fully visible in the CT scan and contouring practices vary across treatment lateralities.

    “This makes sense: it is the hardest of the three structures to segment in breast radiotherapy data because it is not always fully visible in the CT scan and contouring practices vary across treatment lateralities. 27”

    From Uncertainty quantification of U‐Net based segmentation tool using conformal prediction (2026) · cites this paper as [27]

    The Background and Discussion (pages unavailable in our copy) describe cardiac substructures as challenging to contour reproducibly on radiotherapy CT scans. The paper does not compare the heart with the other two structures in the claim, say that the whole heart is not always fully visible, or attribute contouring difficulty to practices varying by treatment laterality. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Duane, F., Aznar, M. C., Bartlett, F., Cutter, D. J., Darby, S. C., Jagsi, R., Lorenzen, E. L., McArdle, O., McGale, P., Myerson, S., Rahimi, K., Vivekanandan, S., Warren, S., & Taylor, C. W.
Affiliations
  • University of Oxford (GB)
  • Queen Alexandra Hospital (GB)
  • University of Michigan (US)
  • Odense University Hospital (DK)
  • St. Luke's Hospital (IE)
  • The George Institute for Global Health (GB)
  • University of Birmingham (GB)
Corresponding author
Duane, Frances
Venue
Radiotherapy and Oncology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2017-03
Volume
122
Issue
3
Pages
416-422
ISSN
0167-8140 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2591100698
Cited by
308
References
24
Citations by year
2026: 31 · 2025: 32 · 2024: 44 · 2023: 35 · 2022: 44 · 2021: 43 · 2020: 35 · 2019: 19 · 2018: 22 · 2017: 3
FWCI
20.37
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Radiotherapy and Oncology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • University of Southern Denmark Research Portal (University of Southern Denmark) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Research Explorer (The University of Manchester) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • Medical Research Council
  • Cancer Research UK (C8225/A21133, RE/13/1/30181, C5255/A15935)
  • British Heart Foundation Centre for Research Excellence
  • National Institute for Health Research
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Radiation › Advanced Radiotherapy Techniques
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Medical Image Segmentation Techniques
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Radiation Dose and Imaging
Keywords
left ventricle segmentation, coronary artery segmentation, cardiac radiotherapy, breast cancer radiotherapy, heart dose
MeSH terms
Breast Neoplasms, Coronary Vessels, Female, Heart, Heart Ventricles, Humans, Radiotherapy Planning, Computer-Assisted, Tomography, X-Ray Computed

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