Cargando…
Real-world validation of Artificial Intelligence-based Computed Tomography auto-contouring for prostate cancer radiotherapy planning
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Artificial Intelligence (AI)-based auto-contouring for treatment planning in radiotherapy needs extensive clinical validation, including the impact of editing after automatic segmentation. The aims of this study were to assess the performance of a commercial system for Clinic...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Elsevier
2023
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10618761/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37920450 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.phro.2023.100501 |
Sumario: | BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Artificial Intelligence (AI)-based auto-contouring for treatment planning in radiotherapy needs extensive clinical validation, including the impact of editing after automatic segmentation. The aims of this study were to assess the performance of a commercial system for Clinical Target Volumes (CTVs) (prostate/seminal vesicles) and selected Organs at Risk (OARs) (rectum/bladder/femoral heads + femurs), evaluating also inter-observer variability (manual vs automatic + editing) and the reduction of contouring time. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two expert observers contoured CTVs/OARs of 20 patients in our Treatment Planning System (TPS). Computed Tomography (CT) images were sent to the automatic contouring workstation: automatic contours were generated and sent back to TPS, where observers could edit them if necessary. Inter- and intra-observer consistency was estimated using Dice Similarity Coefficients (DSC). Radiation oncologists were also asked to score the quality of automatic contours, ranging from 1 (complete re-contouring) to 5 (no editing). Contouring times (manual vs automatic + edit) were compared. RESULTS: DSCs (manual vs automatic only) were consistent with inter-observer variability (between 0.65 for seminal vesicles and 0.94 for bladder); editing further improved performances (range: 0.76–0.94). The median clinical score was 4 (little editing) and it was <4 in 3/2 patients for the two observers respectively. Inter-observer variability of automatic + editing contours improved significantly, being lower than manual contouring (e.g.: seminal vesicles: 0.83vs0.73; prostate: 0.86vs0.83; rectum: 0.96vs0.81). Oncologist contouring time reduced from 17 to 24 min of manual contouring time to 3–7 min of editing time for the two observers (p < 0.01). CONCLUSION: Automatic contouring with a commercial AI-based system followed by editing can replace manual contouring, resulting in significantly reduced time for segmentation and better consistency between operators. |
---|