Cargando…

Analysis of Geometric Performance and Dosimetric Impact of Using Automatic Contour Segmentation for Radiotherapy Planning

Purpose: To analyze geometric discrepancy and dosimetric impact in using contours generated by auto-segmentation (AS) against manually segmented (MS) clinical contours. Methods: A 48-subject prostate atlas was created and another 15 patients were used for testing. Contours were generated using a com...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Cao, Minsong, Stiehl, Bradley, Yu, Victoria Y., Sheng, Ke, Kishan, Amar U., Chin, Robert K., Yang, Yingli, Ruan, Dan
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Frontiers Media S.A. 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7546883/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33102206
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2020.01762
_version_ 1783592314338279424
author Cao, Minsong
Stiehl, Bradley
Yu, Victoria Y.
Sheng, Ke
Kishan, Amar U.
Chin, Robert K.
Yang, Yingli
Ruan, Dan
author_facet Cao, Minsong
Stiehl, Bradley
Yu, Victoria Y.
Sheng, Ke
Kishan, Amar U.
Chin, Robert K.
Yang, Yingli
Ruan, Dan
author_sort Cao, Minsong
collection PubMed
description Purpose: To analyze geometric discrepancy and dosimetric impact in using contours generated by auto-segmentation (AS) against manually segmented (MS) clinical contours. Methods: A 48-subject prostate atlas was created and another 15 patients were used for testing. Contours were generated using a commercial atlas-based segmentation tool and compared to their clinical MS counterparts. The geometric correlation was evaluated using the Dice similarity coefficient (DSC) and Hausdorff distance (HD). Dosimetric relevance was evaluated for a subset of patients by assessing the DVH differences derived by optimizing plan dose using the AS and MS contours, respectively, and evaluating with respect to each. A paired t-test was employed for statistical comparison. The discrepancy in plan quality with respect to clinical dosimetric endpoints was evaluated. The analysis was repeated for head/neck (HN) with a 31-subject atlas and 15 test cases. Results: Dice agreement between AS and MS differed significantly across structures: from (L:0.92/R: 0.91) for the femoral heads to seminal vesical of 0.38 in the prostate cohort, and from 0.98 for the brain, to 0.36 for the chiasm of the HN group. Despite the geometric disagreement, the paired t-tests showed the lack of statistical evidence for systematic differences in dosimetric plan quality yielded by the AS and MS approach for the prostate cohort. In HN cases, statistically significant differences in dosimetric endpoints were observed in structures with small volumes or elongated shapes such as cord (p = 0.01) and esophagus (p = 0.04). The largest absolute dose difference of 11 Gy was seen in the mean pharynx dose. Conclusion: Varying AS performance among structures suggests a differential approach of using AS on a subset of structures and focus MS on the rest. The discrepancy between geometric and dosimetric-end-point driven evaluation also indicates the clinical utility of AS contours in optimization and evaluating plan quality despite of suboptimal geometrical accuracy.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7546883
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher Frontiers Media S.A.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-75468832020-10-22 Analysis of Geometric Performance and Dosimetric Impact of Using Automatic Contour Segmentation for Radiotherapy Planning Cao, Minsong Stiehl, Bradley Yu, Victoria Y. Sheng, Ke Kishan, Amar U. Chin, Robert K. Yang, Yingli Ruan, Dan Front Oncol Oncology Purpose: To analyze geometric discrepancy and dosimetric impact in using contours generated by auto-segmentation (AS) against manually segmented (MS) clinical contours. Methods: A 48-subject prostate atlas was created and another 15 patients were used for testing. Contours were generated using a commercial atlas-based segmentation tool and compared to their clinical MS counterparts. The geometric correlation was evaluated using the Dice similarity coefficient (DSC) and Hausdorff distance (HD). Dosimetric relevance was evaluated for a subset of patients by assessing the DVH differences derived by optimizing plan dose using the AS and MS contours, respectively, and evaluating with respect to each. A paired t-test was employed for statistical comparison. The discrepancy in plan quality with respect to clinical dosimetric endpoints was evaluated. The analysis was repeated for head/neck (HN) with a 31-subject atlas and 15 test cases. Results: Dice agreement between AS and MS differed significantly across structures: from (L:0.92/R: 0.91) for the femoral heads to seminal vesical of 0.38 in the prostate cohort, and from 0.98 for the brain, to 0.36 for the chiasm of the HN group. Despite the geometric disagreement, the paired t-tests showed the lack of statistical evidence for systematic differences in dosimetric plan quality yielded by the AS and MS approach for the prostate cohort. In HN cases, statistically significant differences in dosimetric endpoints were observed in structures with small volumes or elongated shapes such as cord (p = 0.01) and esophagus (p = 0.04). The largest absolute dose difference of 11 Gy was seen in the mean pharynx dose. Conclusion: Varying AS performance among structures suggests a differential approach of using AS on a subset of structures and focus MS on the rest. The discrepancy between geometric and dosimetric-end-point driven evaluation also indicates the clinical utility of AS contours in optimization and evaluating plan quality despite of suboptimal geometrical accuracy. Frontiers Media S.A. 2020-09-23 /pmc/articles/PMC7546883/ /pubmed/33102206 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2020.01762 Text en Copyright © 2020 Cao, Stiehl, Yu, Sheng, Kishan, Chin, Yang and Ruan. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
spellingShingle Oncology
Cao, Minsong
Stiehl, Bradley
Yu, Victoria Y.
Sheng, Ke
Kishan, Amar U.
Chin, Robert K.
Yang, Yingli
Ruan, Dan
Analysis of Geometric Performance and Dosimetric Impact of Using Automatic Contour Segmentation for Radiotherapy Planning
title Analysis of Geometric Performance and Dosimetric Impact of Using Automatic Contour Segmentation for Radiotherapy Planning
title_full Analysis of Geometric Performance and Dosimetric Impact of Using Automatic Contour Segmentation for Radiotherapy Planning
title_fullStr Analysis of Geometric Performance and Dosimetric Impact of Using Automatic Contour Segmentation for Radiotherapy Planning
title_full_unstemmed Analysis of Geometric Performance and Dosimetric Impact of Using Automatic Contour Segmentation for Radiotherapy Planning
title_short Analysis of Geometric Performance and Dosimetric Impact of Using Automatic Contour Segmentation for Radiotherapy Planning
title_sort analysis of geometric performance and dosimetric impact of using automatic contour segmentation for radiotherapy planning
topic Oncology
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7546883/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33102206
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2020.01762
work_keys_str_mv AT caominsong analysisofgeometricperformanceanddosimetricimpactofusingautomaticcontoursegmentationforradiotherapyplanning
AT stiehlbradley analysisofgeometricperformanceanddosimetricimpactofusingautomaticcontoursegmentationforradiotherapyplanning
AT yuvictoriay analysisofgeometricperformanceanddosimetricimpactofusingautomaticcontoursegmentationforradiotherapyplanning
AT shengke analysisofgeometricperformanceanddosimetricimpactofusingautomaticcontoursegmentationforradiotherapyplanning
AT kishanamaru analysisofgeometricperformanceanddosimetricimpactofusingautomaticcontoursegmentationforradiotherapyplanning
AT chinrobertk analysisofgeometricperformanceanddosimetricimpactofusingautomaticcontoursegmentationforradiotherapyplanning
AT yangyingli analysisofgeometricperformanceanddosimetricimpactofusingautomaticcontoursegmentationforradiotherapyplanning
AT ruandan analysisofgeometricperformanceanddosimetricimpactofusingautomaticcontoursegmentationforradiotherapyplanning