## 3 Results  
The Automatic vs. Manual and Manual vs. Manual evaluation metrics averaged over 10 patients for each tumor site, as well as each of the SESS, SEDS, or DE matches, are summarized in Table 2. For liver patients, Automatic vs. Manual SESS, SEDS, and DE DCs were 0.90, 0.79, and 0.70, respectively, while Manual vs. Manual SEDS and DE DCs were 0.78 and 0.69, respectively. For prostate patients, Automatic vs. Manual SESS, SEDS, and DE DCs were 0.95, 0.93, and 0.87, respectively, while Manual vs. Manual SEDS and DE DCs were 0.92 and 0.87, respectively. Lastly, for lung patients, Automatic vs. Manual SESS, SEDS, and DE DCs were 0.89, 0.85, and 0.76, respectively, while Manual vs. Manual SEDS and DE DCs were 0.84 and 0.75, respectively. The best overall agreement was observed for prostate patients, whereas the worst agreement was observed for liver patients for most of the comparisons. Additionally, the Manual vs. Manual SEDS metrics were found to be better than the Manual vs. Manual DE metrics consistently for all tumor sites. Averaged over all 30 patients, Automatic vs. Manual evaluation metrics for SESS, SEDS, and DE were DC = 0.91, 0.86, 0.78, CD = 1.3, 1.8, 2.7 mm, and HD = 3.1, 4.6, 7.0 mm, respectively. In terms of intra-observer variability, the Automatic vs. Manual SEDS metrics are DC = 0.86, CD = 1.8 mm, and HD = 4.6 mm, whereas the Manual vs. Manual SEDS metrics are DC = 0.85, CD = 2.1 mm, and HD = 4.9 mm. This indicates that the agreement between auto- and manual contours is similar to the agreement between manual contours from different sessions by an expert. In terms of inter-observer variability, the Automatic vs. Manual DE metrics are DC = 0.78, CD = 2.7 mm, and HD = 7.0 mm, whereas the Manual vs. Manual DE metrics are DC = 0.77, CD = 2.8 mm, and HD = 7.2 mm. This suggests that the agreement between auto- and manual contours is comparable to the agreement between manual and manual contours from different experts. The detailed evaluation metrics are shown in Tables 1-3 in the Appendix A, in which the following notation is used: A\({}_{12}\) denotes autocontours generated by our algorithm, trained using manual contours from expert 1 in session 2. M\({}_{31}\) denotes manual contours drawn by expert 3 in session 1. In these tables, the mean (standard deviation) DC, CD, and HD values are displayed, where the shaded, diagonal elements are SESS comparisons, bolded elements are SEDS comparisons, and underlined elements are DE comparisons. For the Automatic vs. Manual comparisons, six sets of autocontours (A\({}_{11}\), A\({}_{12}\), A\({}_{21}\), A\({}_{22}\), A\({}_{31}\), and A\({}_{32}\)) were compared against six sets of manual contours drawn on the same images, namely, M\({}_{11}\), M\({}_{12}\), M\({}_{21}\), M\({}_{22}\), M\({}_{31}\), and M\({}_{32}\). For the Manual vs. Manual comparisons, the manual contours (M\({}_{11}\), M\({}_{12}\), M\({}_{21}\), M\({}_{22}\), M\({}_{31}\), and M\({}_{32}\)) were compared against each other. Figure 2 shows patient cases with the best and worst Automatic vs. Manual and Manual vs. Manual intra- or inter-observer variability (i.e., SEDS or DE) DC for each tumor site. In this figure, examples of intra-observer variability DCs are shown for liver, while inter-observer variability DCs are shown for the prostate and lung. This is to show visual Automatic vs. Manual and Manual vs. Manual comparisons for both intra- and inter-observer variability comparisons. Comparing each of the Automatic vs. Manual with Manual vs. Manual comparisons, it can be visually confirmed that the agreement between auto- and manual contours is similar to the agreement between manual and manual contours.