Cargando…
Automatic contouring QA method using a deep learning–based autocontouring system
PURPOSE: To determine the most accurate similarity metric when using an independent system to verify automatically generated contours. METHODS: A reference autocontouring system (primary system to create clinical contours) and a verification autocontouring system (secondary system to test the primar...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
John Wiley and Sons Inc.
2022
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9359039/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35580067 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/acm2.13647 |
_version_ | 1784764055515299840 |
---|---|
author | Rhee, Dong Joo Akinfenwa, Chidinma P. Anakwenze Rigaud, Bastien Jhingran, Anuja Cardenas, Carlos E. Zhang, Lifei Prajapati, Surendra Kry, Stephen F. Brock, Kristy K. Beadle, Beth M. Shaw, William O'Reilly, Frederika Parkes, Jeannette Burger, Hester Fakie, Nazia Trauernicht, Chris Simonds, Hannah Court, Laurence E. |
author_facet | Rhee, Dong Joo Akinfenwa, Chidinma P. Anakwenze Rigaud, Bastien Jhingran, Anuja Cardenas, Carlos E. Zhang, Lifei Prajapati, Surendra Kry, Stephen F. Brock, Kristy K. Beadle, Beth M. Shaw, William O'Reilly, Frederika Parkes, Jeannette Burger, Hester Fakie, Nazia Trauernicht, Chris Simonds, Hannah Court, Laurence E. |
author_sort | Rhee, Dong Joo |
collection | PubMed |
description | PURPOSE: To determine the most accurate similarity metric when using an independent system to verify automatically generated contours. METHODS: A reference autocontouring system (primary system to create clinical contours) and a verification autocontouring system (secondary system to test the primary contours) were used to generate a pair of 6 female pelvic structures (UteroCervix [uterus + cervix], CTVn [nodal clinical target volume (CTV)], PAN [para‐aortic lymph nodes], bladder, rectum, and kidneys) on 49 CT scans from our institution and 38 from other institutions. Additionally, clinically acceptable and unacceptable contours were manually generated using the 49 internal CT scans. Eleven similarity metrics (volumetric Dice similarity coefficient (DSC), Hausdorff distance, 95% Hausdorff distance, mean surface distance, and surface DSC with tolerances from 1 to 10 mm) were calculated between the reference and the verification autocontours, and between the manually generated and the verification autocontours. A support vector machine (SVM) was used to determine the threshold that separates clinically acceptable and unacceptable contours for each structure. The 11 metrics were investigated individually and in certain combinations. Linear, radial basis function, sigmoid, and polynomial kernels were tested using the combinations of metrics as inputs for the SVM. RESULTS: The highest contouring error detection accuracies were 0.91 for the UteroCervix, 0.90 for the CTVn, 0.89 for the PAN, 0.92 for the bladder, 0.95 for the rectum, and 0.97 for the kidneys and were achieved using surface DSCs with a thickness of 1, 2, or 3 mm. The linear kernel was the most accurate and consistent when a combination of metrics was used as an input for the SVM. However, the best model accuracy from the combinations of metrics was not better than the best model accuracy from a surface DSC as an input. CONCLUSIONS: We distinguished clinically acceptable contours from clinically unacceptable contours with an accuracy higher than 0.9 for the targets and critical structures in patients with cervical cancer; the most accurate similarity metric was surface DSC with a thickness of 1, 2, or 3 mm. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-9359039 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2022 |
publisher | John Wiley and Sons Inc. |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-93590392022-08-10 Automatic contouring QA method using a deep learning–based autocontouring system Rhee, Dong Joo Akinfenwa, Chidinma P. Anakwenze Rigaud, Bastien Jhingran, Anuja Cardenas, Carlos E. Zhang, Lifei Prajapati, Surendra Kry, Stephen F. Brock, Kristy K. Beadle, Beth M. Shaw, William O'Reilly, Frederika Parkes, Jeannette Burger, Hester Fakie, Nazia Trauernicht, Chris Simonds, Hannah Court, Laurence E. J Appl Clin Med Phys Radiation Oncology Physics PURPOSE: To determine the most accurate similarity metric when using an independent system to verify automatically generated contours. METHODS: A reference autocontouring system (primary system to create clinical contours) and a verification autocontouring system (secondary system to test the primary contours) were used to generate a pair of 6 female pelvic structures (UteroCervix [uterus + cervix], CTVn [nodal clinical target volume (CTV)], PAN [para‐aortic lymph nodes], bladder, rectum, and kidneys) on 49 CT scans from our institution and 38 from other institutions. Additionally, clinically acceptable and unacceptable contours were manually generated using the 49 internal CT scans. Eleven similarity metrics (volumetric Dice similarity coefficient (DSC), Hausdorff distance, 95% Hausdorff distance, mean surface distance, and surface DSC with tolerances from 1 to 10 mm) were calculated between the reference and the verification autocontours, and between the manually generated and the verification autocontours. A support vector machine (SVM) was used to determine the threshold that separates clinically acceptable and unacceptable contours for each structure. The 11 metrics were investigated individually and in certain combinations. Linear, radial basis function, sigmoid, and polynomial kernels were tested using the combinations of metrics as inputs for the SVM. RESULTS: The highest contouring error detection accuracies were 0.91 for the UteroCervix, 0.90 for the CTVn, 0.89 for the PAN, 0.92 for the bladder, 0.95 for the rectum, and 0.97 for the kidneys and were achieved using surface DSCs with a thickness of 1, 2, or 3 mm. The linear kernel was the most accurate and consistent when a combination of metrics was used as an input for the SVM. However, the best model accuracy from the combinations of metrics was not better than the best model accuracy from a surface DSC as an input. CONCLUSIONS: We distinguished clinically acceptable contours from clinically unacceptable contours with an accuracy higher than 0.9 for the targets and critical structures in patients with cervical cancer; the most accurate similarity metric was surface DSC with a thickness of 1, 2, or 3 mm. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2022-05-17 /pmc/articles/PMC9359039/ /pubmed/35580067 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/acm2.13647 Text en © 2022 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 Rhee, Dong Joo Akinfenwa, Chidinma P. Anakwenze Rigaud, Bastien Jhingran, Anuja Cardenas, Carlos E. Zhang, Lifei Prajapati, Surendra Kry, Stephen F. Brock, Kristy K. Beadle, Beth M. Shaw, William O'Reilly, Frederika Parkes, Jeannette Burger, Hester Fakie, Nazia Trauernicht, Chris Simonds, Hannah Court, Laurence E. Automatic contouring QA method using a deep learning–based autocontouring system |
title | Automatic contouring QA method using a deep learning–based autocontouring system |
title_full | Automatic contouring QA method using a deep learning–based autocontouring system |
title_fullStr | Automatic contouring QA method using a deep learning–based autocontouring system |
title_full_unstemmed | Automatic contouring QA method using a deep learning–based autocontouring system |
title_short | Automatic contouring QA method using a deep learning–based autocontouring system |
title_sort | automatic contouring qa method using a deep learning–based autocontouring system |
topic | Radiation Oncology Physics |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9359039/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35580067 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/acm2.13647 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT rheedongjoo automaticcontouringqamethodusingadeeplearningbasedautocontouringsystem AT akinfenwachidinmapanakwenze automaticcontouringqamethodusingadeeplearningbasedautocontouringsystem AT rigaudbastien automaticcontouringqamethodusingadeeplearningbasedautocontouringsystem AT jhingrananuja automaticcontouringqamethodusingadeeplearningbasedautocontouringsystem AT cardenascarlose automaticcontouringqamethodusingadeeplearningbasedautocontouringsystem AT zhanglifei automaticcontouringqamethodusingadeeplearningbasedautocontouringsystem AT prajapatisurendra automaticcontouringqamethodusingadeeplearningbasedautocontouringsystem AT krystephenf automaticcontouringqamethodusingadeeplearningbasedautocontouringsystem AT brockkristyk automaticcontouringqamethodusingadeeplearningbasedautocontouringsystem AT beadlebethm automaticcontouringqamethodusingadeeplearningbasedautocontouringsystem AT shawwilliam automaticcontouringqamethodusingadeeplearningbasedautocontouringsystem AT oreillyfrederika automaticcontouringqamethodusingadeeplearningbasedautocontouringsystem AT parkesjeannette automaticcontouringqamethodusingadeeplearningbasedautocontouringsystem AT burgerhester automaticcontouringqamethodusingadeeplearningbasedautocontouringsystem AT fakienazia automaticcontouringqamethodusingadeeplearningbasedautocontouringsystem AT trauernichtchris automaticcontouringqamethodusingadeeplearningbasedautocontouringsystem AT simondshannah automaticcontouringqamethodusingadeeplearningbasedautocontouringsystem AT courtlaurencee automaticcontouringqamethodusingadeeplearningbasedautocontouringsystem |