Comparison of the use of a clinically implemented deep learning segmentation model with the simulated study setting for breast cancer patients receiving radiotherapy.

IF 2.7 3区 医学 Q3 ONCOLOGY
Nienke Bakx, Maurice Van der Sangen, Jacqueline Theuws, Johanna Bluemink, Coen Hurkmans
{"title":"Comparison of the use of a clinically implemented deep learning segmentation model with the simulated study setting for breast cancer patients receiving radiotherapy.","authors":"Nienke Bakx, Maurice Van der Sangen, Jacqueline Theuws, Johanna Bluemink, Coen Hurkmans","doi":"10.2340/1651-226X.2024.34986","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Deep learning (DL) models for auto-segmentation in radiotherapy have been extensively studied in retrospective and pilot settings. However, these studies might not reflect the clinical setting. This study compares the use of a clinically implemented in-house trained DL segmentation model for breast cancer to a previously performed pilot study to assess possible differences in performance or acceptability.</p><p><strong>Material and methods: </strong>Sixty patients with whole breast radiotherapy, with or without an indication for locoregional radiotherapy were included. Structures were qualitatively scored by radiotherapy technologists and radiation oncologists. Quantitative evaluation was performed using dice-similarity coefficient (DSC), 95th percentile of Hausdorff Distance (95%HD) and surface DSC (sDSC), and time needed for generating, checking, and correcting structures was measured.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Ninety-three percent of all contours in clinic were scored as clinically acceptable or usable as a starting point, comparable to 92% achieved in the pilot study. Compared to the pilot study, no significant changes in time reduction were achieved for organs at risks (OARs). For target volumes, significantly more time was needed compared to the pilot study for patients including lymph node levels 1-4, although time reduction was still 33% compared to manual segmentation. Almost all contours have better DSC and 95%HD than inter-observer variations. Only CTVn4 scored worse for both metrics, and the thyroid had a higher 95%HD value.</p><p><strong>Interpretation: </strong>The use of the DL model in clinical practice is comparable to the pilot study, showing high acceptability rates and time reduction.</p>","PeriodicalId":7110,"journal":{"name":"Acta Oncologica","volume":"63 ","pages":"477-481"},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11332522/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Acta Oncologica","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2340/1651-226X.2024.34986","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Deep learning (DL) models for auto-segmentation in radiotherapy have been extensively studied in retrospective and pilot settings. However, these studies might not reflect the clinical setting. This study compares the use of a clinically implemented in-house trained DL segmentation model for breast cancer to a previously performed pilot study to assess possible differences in performance or acceptability.

Material and methods: Sixty patients with whole breast radiotherapy, with or without an indication for locoregional radiotherapy were included. Structures were qualitatively scored by radiotherapy technologists and radiation oncologists. Quantitative evaluation was performed using dice-similarity coefficient (DSC), 95th percentile of Hausdorff Distance (95%HD) and surface DSC (sDSC), and time needed for generating, checking, and correcting structures was measured.

Results: Ninety-three percent of all contours in clinic were scored as clinically acceptable or usable as a starting point, comparable to 92% achieved in the pilot study. Compared to the pilot study, no significant changes in time reduction were achieved for organs at risks (OARs). For target volumes, significantly more time was needed compared to the pilot study for patients including lymph node levels 1-4, although time reduction was still 33% compared to manual segmentation. Almost all contours have better DSC and 95%HD than inter-observer variations. Only CTVn4 scored worse for both metrics, and the thyroid had a higher 95%HD value.

Interpretation: The use of the DL model in clinical practice is comparable to the pilot study, showing high acceptability rates and time reduction.

比较临床实施的深度学习分割模型与针对接受放疗的乳腺癌患者的模拟研究设置的使用情况。
背景:用于放疗自动分割的深度学习(DL)模型已在回顾性和试验性环境中得到广泛研究。然而,这些研究可能无法反映临床环境。本研究将临床实施的内部训练的乳腺癌深度学习分割模型与之前进行的试点研究进行比较,以评估性能或可接受性方面可能存在的差异:研究对象包括60名接受全乳腺放疗的患者,无论其是否具有局部放疗指征。由放射治疗技师和放射肿瘤专家对结构进行定性评分。使用骰子相似系数(DSC)、豪斯多夫距离第95百分位数(95%HD)和表面DSC(sDSC)进行定量评估,并测量生成、检查和校正结构所需的时间:结果:在临床中,93% 的轮廓被评为临床可接受或可作为起点使用,与试点研究中 92% 的比例相当。与试点研究相比,风险器官(OAR)的时间缩减没有明显变化。就目标体积而言,与试验研究相比,包括 1-4 级淋巴结的患者所需的时间明显增加,但与手动分割相比,所需时间仍减少了 33%。几乎所有轮廓的 DSC 和 95%HD 都优于观察者之间的差异。只有 CTVn4 的两项指标得分较差,甲状腺的 95%HD 值较高:DL模型在临床实践中的应用与试点研究结果相当,显示出较高的可接受性和较短的时间。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Acta Oncologica
Acta Oncologica 医学-肿瘤学
CiteScore
4.30
自引率
3.20%
发文量
301
审稿时长
3 months
期刊介绍: Acta Oncologica is a journal for the clinical oncologist and accepts articles within all fields of clinical cancer research. Articles on tumour pathology, experimental oncology, radiobiology, cancer epidemiology and medical radio physics are also welcome, especially if they have a clinical aim or interest. Scientific articles on cancer nursing and psychological or social aspects of cancer are also welcomed. Extensive material may be published as Supplements, for which special conditions apply.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信