Cargando…

Proof‐of‐concept study of artificial intelligence‐assisted review of CBCT image guidance

PURPOSE: Automation and computer assistance can support quality assurance tasks in radiotherapy. Retrospective image review requires significant human resources, and automation of image review remains a noteworthy missing element in previous work. Here, we present initial findings from a proof‐of‐co...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Neylon, Jack, Luximon, Dishane C., Ritter, Timothy, Lamb, James M.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10476980/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37165761
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/acm2.14016
_version_ 1785101049403539456
author Neylon, Jack
Luximon, Dishane C.
Ritter, Timothy
Lamb, James M.
author_facet Neylon, Jack
Luximon, Dishane C.
Ritter, Timothy
Lamb, James M.
author_sort Neylon, Jack
collection PubMed
description PURPOSE: Automation and computer assistance can support quality assurance tasks in radiotherapy. Retrospective image review requires significant human resources, and automation of image review remains a noteworthy missing element in previous work. Here, we present initial findings from a proof‐of‐concept clinical implementation of an AI‐assisted review of CBCT registrations used for patient setup. METHODS: An automated pipeline was developed and executed nightly, utilizing python scripts to interact with the clinical database through DICOM networking protocol and automate data retrieval and analysis. A previously developed artificial intelligence (AI) algorithm scored CBCT setup registrations based on misalignment likelihood, using a scale from 0 (most unlikely) through 1 (most likely). Over a 45‐day period, 1357 pre‐treatment CBCT registrations from 197 patients were retrieved and analyzed by the pipeline. Daily summary reports of the previous day's registrations were produced. Initial action levels targeted 10% of cases to highlight for in‐depth physics review. A validation subset of 100 cases was scored by three independent observers to characterize AI‐model performance. RESULTS: Following an ROC analysis, a global threshold for model predictions of 0.87 was determined, with a sensitivity of 100% and specificity of 82%. Inspecting the observer scores for the stratified validation dataset showed a statistically significant correlation between observer scores and model predictions. CONCLUSION: In this work, we describe the implementation of an automated AI‐analysis pipeline for daily quantitative analysis of CBCT‐guided patient setup registrations. The AI‐model was validated against independent expert observers, and appropriate action levels were determined to minimize false positives without sacrificing sensitivity. Case studies demonstrate the potential benefits of such a pipeline to bolster quality and safety programs in radiotherapy. To the authors’ knowledge, there are no previous works performing AI‐assisted assessment of pre‐treatment CBCT‐based patient alignment.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10476980
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-104769802023-09-05 Proof‐of‐concept study of artificial intelligence‐assisted review of CBCT image guidance Neylon, Jack Luximon, Dishane C. Ritter, Timothy Lamb, James M. J Appl Clin Med Phys Radiation Oncology Physics PURPOSE: Automation and computer assistance can support quality assurance tasks in radiotherapy. Retrospective image review requires significant human resources, and automation of image review remains a noteworthy missing element in previous work. Here, we present initial findings from a proof‐of‐concept clinical implementation of an AI‐assisted review of CBCT registrations used for patient setup. METHODS: An automated pipeline was developed and executed nightly, utilizing python scripts to interact with the clinical database through DICOM networking protocol and automate data retrieval and analysis. A previously developed artificial intelligence (AI) algorithm scored CBCT setup registrations based on misalignment likelihood, using a scale from 0 (most unlikely) through 1 (most likely). Over a 45‐day period, 1357 pre‐treatment CBCT registrations from 197 patients were retrieved and analyzed by the pipeline. Daily summary reports of the previous day's registrations were produced. Initial action levels targeted 10% of cases to highlight for in‐depth physics review. A validation subset of 100 cases was scored by three independent observers to characterize AI‐model performance. RESULTS: Following an ROC analysis, a global threshold for model predictions of 0.87 was determined, with a sensitivity of 100% and specificity of 82%. Inspecting the observer scores for the stratified validation dataset showed a statistically significant correlation between observer scores and model predictions. CONCLUSION: In this work, we describe the implementation of an automated AI‐analysis pipeline for daily quantitative analysis of CBCT‐guided patient setup registrations. The AI‐model was validated against independent expert observers, and appropriate action levels were determined to minimize false positives without sacrificing sensitivity. Case studies demonstrate the potential benefits of such a pipeline to bolster quality and safety programs in radiotherapy. To the authors’ knowledge, there are no previous works performing AI‐assisted assessment of pre‐treatment CBCT‐based patient alignment. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2023-05-10 /pmc/articles/PMC10476980/ /pubmed/37165761 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/acm2.14016 Text en © 2023 The Authors. Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics published by Wiley Periodicals, LLC on behalf of The American Association of Physicists in Medicine. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Radiation Oncology Physics
Neylon, Jack
Luximon, Dishane C.
Ritter, Timothy
Lamb, James M.
Proof‐of‐concept study of artificial intelligence‐assisted review of CBCT image guidance
title Proof‐of‐concept study of artificial intelligence‐assisted review of CBCT image guidance
title_full Proof‐of‐concept study of artificial intelligence‐assisted review of CBCT image guidance
title_fullStr Proof‐of‐concept study of artificial intelligence‐assisted review of CBCT image guidance
title_full_unstemmed Proof‐of‐concept study of artificial intelligence‐assisted review of CBCT image guidance
title_short Proof‐of‐concept study of artificial intelligence‐assisted review of CBCT image guidance
title_sort proof‐of‐concept study of artificial intelligence‐assisted review of cbct image guidance
topic Radiation Oncology Physics
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10476980/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37165761
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/acm2.14016
work_keys_str_mv AT neylonjack proofofconceptstudyofartificialintelligenceassistedreviewofcbctimageguidance
AT luximondishanec proofofconceptstudyofartificialintelligenceassistedreviewofcbctimageguidance
AT rittertimothy proofofconceptstudyofartificialintelligenceassistedreviewofcbctimageguidance
AT lambjamesm proofofconceptstudyofartificialintelligenceassistedreviewofcbctimageguidance