Dataset Information

Implementation of deep learning-based auto-segmentation for radiotherapy planning structures: a workflow study at two cancer centers.

ABSTRACT:

Purpose

We recently described the validation of deep learning-based auto-segmented contour (DC) models for organs at risk (OAR) and clinical target volumes (CTV). In this study, we evaluate the performance of implemented DC models in the clinical radiotherapy (RT) planning workflow and report on user experience.

Methods and materials

DC models were implemented at two cancer centers and used to generate OAR and CTVs for all patients undergoing RT for a central nervous system (CNS), head and neck (H&N), or prostate cancer. Radiation Therapists/Dosimetrists and Radiation Oncologists completed post-contouring surveys rating the degree of edits required for DCs (1 = minimal, 5 = significant) and overall DC satisfaction (1 = poor, 5 = high). Unedited DCs were compared to the edited treatment approved contours using Dice similarity coefficient (DSC) and 95% Hausdorff distance (HD).

Results

Between September 19, 2019 and March 6, 2020, DCs were generated on approximately 551 eligible cases. 203 surveys were collected on 27 CNS, 54 H&N, and 93 prostate RT plans, resulting in an overall survey compliance rate of 32%. The majority of OAR DCs required minimal edits subjectively (mean editing score ≤ 2) and objectively (mean DSC and 95% HD was ≥ 0.90 and ≤ 2.0 mm). Mean OAR satisfaction score was 4.1 for CNS, 4.4 for H&N, and 4.6 for prostate structures. Overall CTV satisfaction score (n = 25), which encompassed the prostate, seminal vesicles, and neck lymph node volumes, was 4.1.

Conclusions

Previously validated OAR DC models for CNS, H&N, and prostate RT planning required minimal subjective and objective edits and resulted in a positive user experience, although low survey compliance was a concern. CTV DC model evaluation was even more limited, but high user satisfaction suggests that they may have served as appropriate starting points for patient specific edits.

SUBMITTER: Wong J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8186196 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Since intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) has become popular for the treatment of gynecologic cancers, the contouring process has become more critical. This study evaluated the feasibility of atlas-based auto-segmentation (ABAS) for contouring in patients with endometrial and cervical cancers. METHODS:A total of 75 sets of planning CT images from 75 patients were collected. Contours for the pelvic nodal clinical target volume (CTV), femur, and bladder were carefully generated by two skilled radiation oncologists. Of 75 patients, 60 were randomly registered in three different atlas libraries for ABAS in groups of 20, 40, or 60. ABAS was conducted in 15 patients, followed by manual correction (ABASc). The time required to generate all contours was recorded, and the accuracy of segmentation was assessed using Dice's coefficient (DC) and the Hausdorff distance (HD) and compared to those of manually delineated contours. RESULTS:For ABAS-CTV, the best results were achieved with groups of 60 patients (DC, 0.79; HD, 19.7?mm) and the worst results with groups of 20 patients (DC, 0.75; p?=?0.012; HD, 21.3?mm; p?=?0.002). ABASc-CTV performed better than ABAS-CTV in terms of both HD and DC (ABASc [n?=?60]; DC, 0.84; HD, 15.6?mm; all p?<?0.017). ABAS required an average of 45.1?s, whereas ABASc required 191.1?s; both methods required less time than the manual methods (p?<?0.001). Both ABAS-Femur and simultaneous ABAS-Bilateral-femurs showed satisfactory performance, regardless of the atlas library used (DC >?0.9 and HD ?10.0?mm), with significant time reduction compared to that needed for manual delineation (p?<?0.001). However, ABAS-Bladder did not prove to be feasible, with inferior results regardless of library size (DC?<?0.6 and HD?>?40?mm). Furthermore, ABASc-Bladder required a longer processing time than manual contouring to achieve the same accuracy. CONCLUSIONS:ABAS could help physicians to delineate the CTV and organs-at-risk (e.g., femurs) in IMRT planning considering its consistency, efficacy, and accuracy.

Project description:Purpose To investigate the dosimetric impact on target volumes and organs at risk (OARs) when unmodified auto-segmented OAR contours are directly used in the design of treatment plans. Materials and Methods A total of 127 patients with cervical cancer were collected for retrospective analysis, including 105 patients in the training set and 22 patients in the testing set. The 3D U-net architecture was used for model training and auto-segmentation of nine types of organs at risk. The auto-segmented and manually segmented organ contours were used for treatment plan optimization to obtain the AS-VMAT (automatic segmentations VMAT) plan and the MS-VMAT (manual segmentations VMAT) plan, respectively. Geometric accuracy between the manual and predicted contours were evaluated using the Dice similarity coefficient (DSC), mean distance-to-agreement (MDA), and Hausdorff distance (HD). The dose volume histogram (DVH) and the gamma passing rate were used to identify the dose differences between the AS-VMAT plan and the MS-VMAT plan. Results Average DSC, MDA and HD95 across all OARs were 0.82–0.96, 0.45–3.21 mm, and 2.30–17.31 mm on the testing set, respectively. The D99% in the rectum and the Dmean in the spinal cord were 6.04 Gy (P = 0.037) and 0.54 Gy (P = 0.026) higher, respectively, in the AS-VMAT plans than in the MS-VMAT plans. The V20, V30, and V40 in the rectum increased by 1.35% (P = 0.027), 1.73% (P = 0.021), and 1.96% (P = 0.008), respectively, whereas the V10 in the spinal cord increased by 1.93% (P = 0.011). The differences in other dosimetry parameters were not statistically significant. The gamma passing rates in the clinical target volume (CTV) were 92.72% and 98.77%, respectively, using the 2%/2 mm and 3%/3 mm criteria, which satisfied the clinical requirements. Conclusions The dose distributions of target volumes were unaffected when auto-segmented organ contours were used in the design of treatment plans, whereas the impact of automated segmentation on the doses to OARs was complicated. We suggest that the auto-segmented contours of tissues in close proximity to the target volume need to be carefully checked and corrected when necessary.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Structure delineation is a necessary, yet time-consuming manual procedure in radiotherapy. Recently, convolutional neural networks have been proposed to speed-up and automatise this procedure, obtaining promising results. With the advent of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-guided radiotherapy, MR-based segmentation is becoming increasingly relevant. However, the majority of the studies investigated automatic contouring based on computed tomography (CT). PURPOSE:In this study, we investigate the feasibility of clinical use of deep learning-based automatic OARs delineation on MRI. MATERIALS AND METHODS:We included 150 patients diagnosed with prostate cancer who underwent MR-only radiotherapy. A three-dimensional (3D) T1-weighted dual spoiled gradient-recalled echo sequence was acquired with 3T MRI for the generation of the synthetic-CT. The first 48 patients were included in a feasibility study training two 3D convolutional networks called DeepMedic and dense V-net (dV-net) to segment bladder, rectum and femurs. A research version of an atlas-based software was considered for comparison. Dice similarity coefficient, 95% Hausdorff distances (HD95), and mean distances were calculated against clinical delineations. For eight patients, an expert RTT scored the quality of the contouring for all the three methods. A choice among the three approaches was made, and the chosen approach was retrained on 97 patients and implemented for automatic use in the clinical workflow. For the successive 53 patients, Dice, HD95 and mean distances were calculated against the clinically used delineations. RESULTS:DeepMedic, dV-net and the atlas-based software generated contours in 60 s, 4 s and 10-15 min, respectively. Performances were higher for both the networks compared to the atlas-based software. The qualitative analysis demonstrated that delineation from DeepMedic required fewer adaptations, followed by dV-net and the atlas-based software. DeepMedic was clinically implemented. After retraining DeepMedic and testing on the successive patients, the performances slightly improved. CONCLUSION:High conformality for OARs delineation was achieved with two in-house trained networks, obtaining a significant speed-up of the delineation procedure. Comparison of different approaches has been performed leading to the succesful adoption of one of the neural networks, DeepMedic, in the clinical workflow. DeepMedic maintained in a clinical setting the accuracy obtained in the feasibility study.

Project description:IntroductionOrgan-at-risk segmentation for head and neck cancer radiation therapy is a complex and time-consuming process (requiring up to 42 individual structure, and may delay start of treatment or even limit access to function-preserving care. Feasibility of using a deep learning (DL) based autosegmentation model to reduce contouring time without compromising contour accuracy is assessed through a blinded randomized trial of radiation oncologists (ROs) using retrospective, de-identified patient data.MethodsTwo head and neck expert ROs used dedicated time to create gold standard (GS) contours on computed tomography (CT) images. 445 CTs were used to train a custom 3D U-Net DL model covering 42 organs-at-risk, with an additional 20 CTs were held out for the randomized trial. For each held-out patient dataset, one of the eight participant ROs was randomly allocated to review and revise the contours produced by the DL model, while another reviewed contours produced by a medical dosimetry assistant (MDA), both blinded to their origin. Time required for MDAs and ROs to contour was recorded, and the unrevised DL contours, as well as the RO-revised contours by the MDAs and DL model were compared to the GS for that patient.ResultsMean time for initial MDA contouring was 2.3 hours (range 1.6-3.8 hours) and RO-revision took 1.1 hours (range, 0.4-4.4 hours), compared to 0.7 hours (range 0.1-2.0 hours) for the RO-revisions to DL contours. Total time reduced by 76% (95%-Confidence Interval: 65%-88%) and RO-revision time reduced by 35% (95%-CI,-39%-91%). All geometric and dosimetric metrics computed, agreement with GS was equivalent or significantly greater (p<0.05) for RO-revised DL contours compared to the RO-revised MDA contours, including volumetric Dice similarity coefficient (VDSC), surface DSC, added path length, and the 95%-Hausdorff distance. 32 OARs (76%) had mean VDSC greater than 0.8 for the RO-revised DL contours, compared to 20 (48%) for RO-revised MDA contours, and 34 (81%) for the unrevised DL OARs.ConclusionDL autosegmentation demonstrated significant time-savings for organ-at-risk contouring while improving agreement with the institutional GS, indicating comparable accuracy of DL model. Integration into the clinical practice with a prospective evaluation is currently underway.