NICE finds AI outlining quicker for radiotherapy planning

NICE reviewed 79 studies and concluded that AI autocontouring with clinician review, by systems such as MVision and Limbus Contour, is likely equivalent to manual contouring and quicker.

1
Benefit status
Reported
Evidence
Found by a court or regulator
Source published
Sources
2 publications
Download data CiteSuggest a correction

Benefits

Benefit

Reported time savings ranged from 3 to 80 minutes

Awaiting review

Outcome identifiers

Unresolved

Not reviewedUnresolved

Category

Reduced Task Time

Awaiting review

Status

Reported benefit

Awaiting review

Beneficiary groups

Organizations.

Awaiting review

Beneficiaries

Unresolved

Not reviewedUnresolved

Reach

Unresolved

Not reviewedUnresolved

Distribution and access

Unresolved

Not reviewedUnresolved

Duration

Unresolved

Not reviewedUnresolved

Expected?

Yes

Awaiting review

Costs and harms

Unresolved

Not reviewedUnresolved

AI system

System

AI autocontouring software: AI-Rad Companion Organs RT, ART-Plan, DLCExpert, INTContour, Limbus Contour, MIM Contour ProtégéAI, MRCAT Prostate plus Auto-contouring, MVision Segmentation Service and RayStation

Awaiting review

Model

This is an explicit unresolved assignment: the sources on record do not settle this question.

Not reviewedUnresolved

Release

Unresolved

Not reviewedUnresolved

Provider

Unresolved

Not reviewedUnresolved

Role

Unresolved

Not reviewedUnresolved

Configuration

Unresolved

Not reviewedUnresolved

Inputs and outputs

Unresolved

Not reviewedUnresolved

Autonomy

Unresolved

Not reviewedUnresolved

Workflow

A trained healthcare professional reviewed and edited every AI contour. The software read standard DICOM images from the planning scan.

Awaiting review

Human oversight

Unresolved

Not reviewedUnresolved

Relation to AI

The reviewed studies compared AI contours, after review and edits, with manual contours of the same structures.

Awaiting review

AI contribution

The reviewed studies compared AI contours, after review and edits, with manual contours of the same structures.

Awaiting review

Measurement

Studies

Controlled observational. [1]

Fully reviewed

Review date: 29 October 2026.

Sources: [1]

Study design

Controlled observational. [1]

Fully reviewed

Review date: 29 October 2026.

Sources: [1]

Measurement

Review of contour quality ratings and contouring time with AI and with manual methods. [1]

Fully reviewed

Review date: 29 October 2026.

Sources: [1]

Setting and sample

79 studies; data extracted from 15 priority studies, 8 prospective. [1]

Fully reviewed

Review date: 29 October 2026.

Sources: [1]

Measures

Contouring time; clinical acceptability of contours. [1]

Fully reviewed

Review date: 29 October 2026.

Sources: [1]

Comparison

Manual contouring. [1]

Fully reviewed

Review date: 29 October 2026.

Sources: [1]

Results

AI contouring consistently quicker; contours generally similar. [1]

Fully reviewed

Review date: 29 October 2026.

Sources: [1]

Additional value from AI

3 to 80 minutes saved. [1]

Fully reviewed

Review date: 29 October 2026.

Sources: [1]

Limitations

Some time savings excluded review time; small structures often needed major edits; limited cost evidence. [1]

Fully reviewed

Review date: 29 October 2026.

Sources: [1]

Denominators

Radiotherapy plans contoured with AI and reviewed by staff. [1]

Fully reviewed

Review date: 29 October 2026.

Sources: [1]

Materials for replication

External assessment group report on the NICE website. [1]

Fully reviewed

Review date: 29 October 2026.

Sources: [1]

Money

Kind of value

The kind of monetary value is unclear.

Not reviewedUnresolved

Amount

The monetary value is not established.

Not reviewedUnresolved

Currency and prices

The currency and price basis are unclear.

Not reviewedUnresolved

Period and unit

The period and unit of the monetary estimate are unclear.

Not reviewedUnresolved

Realization

Whether the monetary value was realized is unclear.

Not reviewedUnresolved

Recipients and payers

The recipients and payers are unclear.

Not reviewedUnresolved

Gross or net

Whether the monetary figure includes costs is unclear.

Not reviewedUnresolved

Included costs

The costs included in the estimate are unclear.

Not reviewedUnresolved

Comparison

The financial comparison is not established.

Not reviewedUnresolved

Method

The method used to calculate monetary value is unclear.

Not reviewedUnresolved

Return and payback

The return on investment or payback period is not established.

Not reviewedUnresolved

People and places

Participants

Developer: Siemens Healthineers, TheraPanacea, Mirada Medical, Carina Medical, Limbus AI, MIM Software, Philips, MVision AI and RaySearch. Operator: Radiotherapy centers in the studies reviewed by NICE; NHS radiotherapy services in England.

Awaiting review

Jurisdictions

Benefit: Multiple countries (studies); England, United Kingdom (guidance). Developer: Multiple: Germany, France, United Kingdom, United States, Canada, Netherlands, Finland, Sweden. Operator: Multiple.

Awaiting review

Ownership and control

Unresolved

Not reviewedUnresolved

Dependencies

Unresolved

Not reviewedUnresolved

Cross-border connections

Unresolved

Not reviewedUnresolved

Geopolitical implications

The geopolitical implications are unclear.

Not reviewedUnresolved

Follow-up

Conditions for replication

Review and editing stay in place. Staff keep the contouring skills that they need to judge AI outlines.

Awaiting review

Replication attempts

Unresolved

Not reviewedUnresolved

Later findings

Unresolved

Not reviewedUnresolved

Availability

Unresolved

Not reviewedUnresolved

Institutional decision

A relevant institutional decision has not been established.

Not reviewedUnresolved

Grounds

The grounds for an institutional decision are unclear.

Not reviewedUnresolved

Action and result

The result of an institutional decision is not established.

Not reviewedUnresolved

Success criterion

The criterion for a successful institutional decision is unclear.

Not reviewedUnresolved

Evidence

Source numbers

AIBD-0654-source-0001–0002

Awaiting review

Citations

Numbered references below.

Awaiting review

Language

Unresolved

Not reviewedUnresolved

Source relationships

Independent

Awaiting review

Original evidence

Unresolved

Not reviewedUnresolved

Access and versions

Unresolved

Not reviewedUnresolved

Supported findings

Unresolved

Not reviewedUnresolved

Evidence strength

Found by a regulator. Sources: two independent regulatory documents. The cited evidence includes no independent study or report. [1] [2]

Fully reviewed

Review date: 29 October 2026.

Sources: [1] [2]

Missing evidence

Unresolved

Not reviewedUnresolved

Grades

Assessed benefits

Organizations.

Awaiting review

Depth

Organizations: 1.

Awaiting review

Reasons

Organizations: Studies reported time savings of 3 to 80 minutes, and experts estimated 10 to 30 minutes, with contours of similar quality.

Awaiting review

Observed or intended

Unresolved

Not reviewedUnresolved

Rubric

Unresolved

Not reviewedUnresolved

Assessor and date

Unresolved

Not reviewedUnresolved

Alternative assessments

Unresolved

Not reviewedUnresolved

Fill

Found by a regulator

Awaiting review

Entry details

Kind

The case describes an evaluation or a study. A health technology assessment of many studies. [1]

Fully reviewed

Review date: 29 October 2026.

Sources: [1]

Field

Healthcare.

Awaiting review

Purpose

The systems were built to draw organ and target outlines for radiotherapy planning so that staff spend less time contouring. The time saving is that purpose.

Awaiting review

Dates

Source published: 27 September 2023. Updated: 29 October 2026.

Awaiting review

Stage

The system was in routine use. Prospective studies used the software in clinical planning, and NICE allows NHS use during evidence generation. [1]

Fully reviewed

Review date: 29 October 2026.

Sources: [1]

Version

SHA-256: 5385144e1bf3…

Awaiting review

SHA-256 of the public case, its assessments, and its displayed answers and notes, excluding its own identifier and the derived coverage summary.

References

Other identifiers

Unresolved

Not reviewedUnresolved

Category mappings

Unresolved

Not reviewedUnresolved

Citable summary

Unresolved

Not reviewedUnresolved

Revisions

1 revision. Latest: 29 October 2026.

Awaiting review

Sources

  1. Regulatory document Independent author

    National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Artificial intelligence (AI) technologies to aid contouring for radiotherapy treatment planning: early value assessment. HealthTech guidance HTG695 (formerly HTE11), section 3: Committee discussion. 27 September 2023.

  2. Regulatory document Independent author

    National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. HTG695, section 1: Recommendations. 27 September 2023.

Collections: Scrutiny and findings.

Cite this case

BibTeX Download BibTeX

Version 5385144e1bf3, archived in the edition of 29 October 2026

Benefit marks

Depth

The number and color show the depth of a benefit.

  1. A convenience, or time or money saved.
  2. A measurable improvement in a result or ability.
  3. A lasting change, an ability restored, or a risk removed.
  4. A serious harm averted or a serious condition resolved in time.
  5. A life or livelihood preserved, or a change documented across a population.

Beneficiary

  • Circle: a person
  • Square: an organization
  • Triangle: society

Evidence

  • Solid. A court or regulator found a benefit, or researchers independently studied it.

  • Hatched. Independent reporting.

  • Outline. Claimed by the parties. Only the people or organizations involved, or sources whose independence has not been assessed, support the benefit.

The fill changes with the evidence. The depth color stays the same.

How benefits are assessed