Evaluating the dosimetric impact of deep-learning-based auto-segmentation in prostate cancer radiotherapy: Insights into real-world clinical implementation and inter-observer variability.
IF 2 4区 医学Q3 RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING
Najmeh Arjmandi, Mohammad Amin Mosleh-Shirazi, Shokoufeh Mohebbi, Shahrokh Nasseri, Alireza Mehdizadeh, Zohreh Pishevar, Sare Hosseini, Amin Amiri Tehranizadeh, Mehdi Momennezhad
{"title":"Evaluating the dosimetric impact of deep-learning-based auto-segmentation in prostate cancer radiotherapy: Insights into real-world clinical implementation and inter-observer variability.","authors":"Najmeh Arjmandi, Mohammad Amin Mosleh-Shirazi, Shokoufeh Mohebbi, Shahrokh Nasseri, Alireza Mehdizadeh, Zohreh Pishevar, Sare Hosseini, Amin Amiri Tehranizadeh, Mehdi Momennezhad","doi":"10.1002/acm2.14569","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>This study aimed to investigate the dosimetric impact of deep-learning-based auto-contouring for clinical target volume (CTV) and organs at risk (OARs) delineation in prostate cancer radiotherapy planning. Additionally, we compared the geometric accuracy of auto-contouring system to the variability observed between human experts.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We evaluated 28 planning CT volumes, each with three contour sets: reference original contours (OC), auto-segmented contours (AC), and expert-defined manual contours (EC). We generated 3D-CRT and intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) plans for each contour set and compared their dosimetric characteristics using dose-volume histograms (DVHs), homogeneity index (HI), conformity index (CI), and gamma pass rate (3%/3 mm).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The geometric differences between automated contours and both their original manual reference contours and a second set of manually generated contours are smaller than the differences between two manually contoured sets for bladder, right femoral head (RFH), and left femoral head (LFH) structures. Furthermore, dose distribution accuracy using planning target volumes (PTVs) derived from automatically contoured CTVs and auto-contoured OARs demonstrated consistency with plans based on reference contours across all evaluated cases for both 3D-CRT and IMRT plans. For example, in IMRT plans, the average D<sub>95</sub> for PTVs was 77.71 ± 0.53 Gy for EC plans, 77.58 ± 0.69 Gy for OC plans, and 77.62 ± 0.38 Gy for AC plans. Automated contouring significantly reduced contouring time, averaging 0.53 ± 0.08 min compared to 24.9 ± 4.5 min for manual delineation.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Our automated contouring system can reduce inter-expert variability and achieve dosimetric accuracy comparable to gold standard reference contours, highlighting its potential for streamlining clinical workflows. The quantitative analysis revealed no consistent trend of increasing or decreasing PTVs derived from automatically contoured CTVs and OAR doses due to automated contours, indicating minimal impact on treatment outcomes. These findings support the clinical feasibility of utilizing our deep-learning-based auto-contouring model for prostate cancer radiotherapy planning.</p>","PeriodicalId":14989,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics","volume":" ","pages":"e14569"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/acm2.14569","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Purpose: This study aimed to investigate the dosimetric impact of deep-learning-based auto-contouring for clinical target volume (CTV) and organs at risk (OARs) delineation in prostate cancer radiotherapy planning. Additionally, we compared the geometric accuracy of auto-contouring system to the variability observed between human experts.
Methods: We evaluated 28 planning CT volumes, each with three contour sets: reference original contours (OC), auto-segmented contours (AC), and expert-defined manual contours (EC). We generated 3D-CRT and intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) plans for each contour set and compared their dosimetric characteristics using dose-volume histograms (DVHs), homogeneity index (HI), conformity index (CI), and gamma pass rate (3%/3 mm).
Results: The geometric differences between automated contours and both their original manual reference contours and a second set of manually generated contours are smaller than the differences between two manually contoured sets for bladder, right femoral head (RFH), and left femoral head (LFH) structures. Furthermore, dose distribution accuracy using planning target volumes (PTVs) derived from automatically contoured CTVs and auto-contoured OARs demonstrated consistency with plans based on reference contours across all evaluated cases for both 3D-CRT and IMRT plans. For example, in IMRT plans, the average D95 for PTVs was 77.71 ± 0.53 Gy for EC plans, 77.58 ± 0.69 Gy for OC plans, and 77.62 ± 0.38 Gy for AC plans. Automated contouring significantly reduced contouring time, averaging 0.53 ± 0.08 min compared to 24.9 ± 4.5 min for manual delineation.
Conclusion: Our automated contouring system can reduce inter-expert variability and achieve dosimetric accuracy comparable to gold standard reference contours, highlighting its potential for streamlining clinical workflows. The quantitative analysis revealed no consistent trend of increasing or decreasing PTVs derived from automatically contoured CTVs and OAR doses due to automated contours, indicating minimal impact on treatment outcomes. These findings support the clinical feasibility of utilizing our deep-learning-based auto-contouring model for prostate cancer radiotherapy planning.
期刊介绍:
Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics is an international Open Access publication dedicated to clinical medical physics. JACMP welcomes original contributions dealing with all aspects of medical physics from scientists working in the clinical medical physics around the world. JACMP accepts only online submission.
JACMP will publish:
-Original Contributions: Peer-reviewed, investigations that represent new and significant contributions to the field. Recommended word count: up to 7500.
-Review Articles: Reviews of major areas or sub-areas in the field of clinical medical physics. These articles may be of any length and are peer reviewed.
-Technical Notes: These should be no longer than 3000 words, including key references.
-Letters to the Editor: Comments on papers published in JACMP or on any other matters of interest to clinical medical physics. These should not be more than 1250 (including the literature) and their publication is only based on the decision of the editor, who occasionally asks experts on the merit of the contents.
-Book Reviews: The editorial office solicits Book Reviews.
-Announcements of Forthcoming Meetings: The Editor may provide notice of forthcoming meetings, course offerings, and other events relevant to clinical medical physics.
-Parallel Opposed Editorial: We welcome topics relevant to clinical practice and medical physics profession. The contents can be controversial debate or opposed aspects of an issue. One author argues for the position and the other against. Each side of the debate contains an opening statement up to 800 words, followed by a rebuttal up to 500 words. Readers interested in participating in this series should contact the moderator with a proposed title and a short description of the topic