Dear Authors,
If you believe that your paper was mistakenly rejected by other leading journals and you do not agree with final decision, the editors of Reports of Practical Oncology and Radiotherapy offer new fast track review. You may submit your manuscript to Reports of Practical Oncology and Radiotherapy together with all prior peer-reviews obtained from the other journal and your rebuttal letter. We guarantee review based decision within 72 hours from the time we will receive your manuscript.

Fast track submission process: Please submit the manuscript with all reviews and rebuttal letter by email to Dr. Michal Masternak (michal.masternak@ucf.edu) for fast review processing. To assure immediate attention the email title must to include: RPOR-fast track- Last Name First Name (of corresponding author).

Volume 24, Number 2, 2019

A review of automatic lung tumour segmentation in the era of 4DCT

Nadine Wong Yuzhen, Sarah Barrett

Summary:

Aim To review the literature on auto-contouring methods of lung tumour volumes on four-dimensional computed tomography (4DCT). Background Manual delineation of lung tumour on 4DCT has been the gold standard in clinical practice. However, it is resource intensive due to the high volume of data which results in longer contouring duration and uncertainties in defining target. Auto-contouring may present as an attractive alternative by decreasing manual inputs required, thus improving the contouring process. This review aims to assess the accuracy, variability and contouring duration of automatic contouring compared with manual contouring in lung cancer on 4DCT datasets. Materials and methods A search and review of literature were conducted to identify studies regarding lung tumour contouring on 4DCT. Manual and auto-contours were assessed and compared based on accuracy, variability and contouring duration. Results Thirteen studies were included in this review and their results were compared. Accuracy of auto-contours was found to be comparable to manual contours. Auto-contouring resulted in lesser inter-observer variation when compared to manual contouring, however there was no significant reduction in intra-observer variability. Additionally, contouring duration was reduced with auto-contouring although long computation time could present as a bottleneck. Conclusion Auto-contouring is reliable and efficient, producing accurate contours with better consistency compared to manual contours. However, manual inputs would still be required both before and after auto-propagation.

Signature: Rep Pract Oncol Radiother, 2019; 24(2) : 208-220


« back

 
INDEXED IN:

Indexed in: EMBASE®, the Excerpta Medica database, the Elsevier BIOBASE (Current Awareness in Biological Sciences) and in the Index Copernicus.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/15071367/19/2