Automated Organ Segmentation for Radiation Therapy: A Comparative Analysis of AI-Based Tools Versus Manual Contouring in Korean Cancer Patients.

IF 4.5 2区医学 Q1 ONCOLOGY

Cancers Pub Date : 2024-10-30 DOI:10.3390/cancers16213670

Seo Hee Choi, Jong Won Park, Yeona Cho, Gowoon Yang, Hong In Yoon

{"title":"Automated Organ Segmentation for Radiation Therapy: A Comparative Analysis of AI-Based Tools Versus Manual Contouring in Korean Cancer Patients.","authors":"Seo Hee Choi, Jong Won Park, Yeona Cho, Gowoon Yang, Hong In Yoon","doi":"10.3390/cancers16213670","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Accurate delineation of tumors and organs at risk (OARs) is crucial for intensity-modulated radiation therapy. This study aimed to evaluate the performance of OncoStudio, an AI-based auto-segmentation tool developed for Korean patients, compared with Protégé AI, a globally developed tool that uses data from Korean cancer patients.Methods: A retrospective analysis of 1200 Korean cancer patients treated with radiotherapy was conducted. Auto-contours generated via OncoStudio and Protégé AI were compared with manual contours across the head and neck and thoracic, abdominal, and pelvic organs. Accuracy was assessed using the Dice similarity coefficient (DSC), mean surface distance (MSD), and 95% Hausdorff distance (HD). Feedback was obtained from 10 participants, including radiation oncologists, residents, and radiation therapists, via an online survey with a Turing test component.Results: OncoStudio outperformed Protégé AI in 85% of the evaluated OARs (p < 0.001). For head and neck organs, OncoStudio achieved a similar DSC (0.70 vs. 0.70, p = 0.637) but significantly lower MSD and 95% HD values (p < 0.001). In thoracic organs, OncoStudio performed excellently in 90% of cases, with a significantly greater DSC (male: 0.87 vs. 0.82, p < 0.001; female: 0.95 vs. 0.87, p < 0.001). OncoStudio also demonstrated superior accuracy in abdominal (DSC 0.88 vs. 0.81, p < 0.001) and pelvic organs (male: DSC 0.95 vs. 0.85, p < 0.001; female: DSC 0.82 vs. 0.73, p < 0.001). Clinicians favored OncoStudio in 70% of cases, with 90% endorsing its clinical suitability for Korean patients.Conclusions: OncoStudio, which is tailored for Korean patients, demonstrated superior segmentation accuracy across multiple anatomical regions, suggesting its suitability for radiotherapy planning in this population.","PeriodicalId":9681,"journal":{"name":"Cancers","volume":"16 21","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11544936/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cancers","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers16213670","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Accurate delineation of tumors and organs at risk (OARs) is crucial for intensity-modulated radiation therapy. This study aimed to evaluate the performance of OncoStudio, an AI-based auto-segmentation tool developed for Korean patients, compared with Protégé AI, a globally developed tool that uses data from Korean cancer patients.

Methods: A retrospective analysis of 1200 Korean cancer patients treated with radiotherapy was conducted. Auto-contours generated via OncoStudio and Protégé AI were compared with manual contours across the head and neck and thoracic, abdominal, and pelvic organs. Accuracy was assessed using the Dice similarity coefficient (DSC), mean surface distance (MSD), and 95% Hausdorff distance (HD). Feedback was obtained from 10 participants, including radiation oncologists, residents, and radiation therapists, via an online survey with a Turing test component.

Results: OncoStudio outperformed Protégé AI in 85% of the evaluated OARs (p < 0.001). For head and neck organs, OncoStudio achieved a similar DSC (0.70 vs. 0.70, p = 0.637) but significantly lower MSD and 95% HD values (p < 0.001). In thoracic organs, OncoStudio performed excellently in 90% of cases, with a significantly greater DSC (male: 0.87 vs. 0.82, p < 0.001; female: 0.95 vs. 0.87, p < 0.001). OncoStudio also demonstrated superior accuracy in abdominal (DSC 0.88 vs. 0.81, p < 0.001) and pelvic organs (male: DSC 0.95 vs. 0.85, p < 0.001; female: DSC 0.82 vs. 0.73, p < 0.001). Clinicians favored OncoStudio in 70% of cases, with 90% endorsing its clinical suitability for Korean patients.

Conclusions: OncoStudio, which is tailored for Korean patients, demonstrated superior segmentation accuracy across multiple anatomical regions, suggesting its suitability for radiotherapy planning in this population.

查看原文本刊更多论文

放射治疗中的自动器官分割：基于人工智能的工具与韩国癌症患者手动勾画轮廓的比较分析。

背景：准确划分肿瘤和危险器官（OAR）对于调强放射治疗至关重要。本研究旨在评估为韩国患者开发的基于人工智能的自动分割工具 OncoStudio 与全球开发的使用韩国癌症患者数据的工具 Protégé AI 的性能比较：方法：对 1200 名接受放疗的韩国癌症患者进行了回顾性分析。将通过 OncoStudio 和 Protégé AI 生成的自动轮廓与头颈部、胸部、腹部和盆腔器官的手动轮廓进行了比较。准确度通过狄斯相似系数（DSC）、平均表面距离（MSD）和 95% 豪斯多夫距离（HD）进行评估。10 位参与者（包括放射肿瘤专家、住院医生和放射治疗师）通过带有图灵测试组件的在线调查提供了反馈意见：结果：在 85% 的评估 OAR 中，OncoStudio 的表现优于 Protégé AI（p < 0.001）。在头颈部器官方面，OncoStudio 的 DSC 值与 Protégé AI 相似（0.70 vs. 0.70，p = 0.637），但 MSD 值和 95% HD 值明显低于 Protégé AI（p < 0.001）。在胸部器官中，OncoStudio 在 90% 的病例中表现优异，DSC 明显更高（男性：0.87 对 0.82，p < 0.001；女性：0.95 对 0.87，p < 0.001）。OncoStudio 对腹部器官（DSC 0.88 对 0.81，p < 0.001）和盆腔器官（男性：DSC 0.95 对 0.85，p < 0.001；女性：DSC 0.82 对 0.73，p < 0.001）的准确性也更高。70%的病例受到临床医生的青睐，90%的病例认可其在韩国患者中的临床适用性：结论：专为韩国患者量身定制的OncoStudio在多个解剖区域显示出卓越的分割准确性，表明其适用于该人群的放疗计划。

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

Cancers Medicine-Oncology

CiteScore

8.00

自引率

9.60%

发文量

5371

审稿时长

18.07 days

期刊介绍： Cancers (ISSN 2072-6694) is an international, peer-reviewed open access journal on oncology. It publishes reviews, regular research papers and short communications. Our aim is to encourage scientists to publish their experimental and theoretical results in as much detail as possible. There is no restriction on the length of the papers. The full experimental details must be provided so that the results can be reproduced.