Clinical efficacy of AI in lung SABR planning: A comparative retrospective analysis.

IF 1 4区 医学 Q4 ONCOLOGY
Kylie Unicomb, Shamira Cross, Sean White, Kevin Vantilburg, Gary Low, Roland Yeghiaian-Alvandi
{"title":"Clinical efficacy of AI in lung SABR planning: A comparative retrospective analysis.","authors":"Kylie Unicomb, Shamira Cross, Sean White, Kevin Vantilburg, Gary Low, Roland Yeghiaian-Alvandi","doi":"10.1016/j.meddos.2025.05.008","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This study evaluated the effectiveness of an integrated Artificial Intelligence (AI) planning tool in a lung stereotactic ablative body radiotherapy (SABR) planning workflow. The aim was to determine whether the AI planning tool would facilitate the generation of consistent high-quality plans while simultaneously improving treatment plan efficiency. The study compares clinically treated planner derived lung SABR plans with AI-generated. Nineteen cases planned with traditional planner derived techniques which make up the control cohort human, were re-planned using AI to determine the efficiency and quality of AI generated plans. The study derived a set of AI criteria to create the AI cohort of plans, and further refinement with an additional optimization created AI + human cohort. Each plan was assessed using departmental criteria, including time efficiency, to determine plan quality. The best plans, chosen after a blind review by the treating RO, were documented and analyzed to demonstrate the effectiveness of AI assistance in Lung SABR planning. Ethics approval was given for this study at a local health district level. Across 19 patients, the human cohort showed a total of 3.3% criteria unmet, which dropped to 2.6% for AI assisted plans in the AI cohort. The percentage of unmet goals was further reduced to 1.84% after the addition of manual planner input in AI + human cohort. All plans selected by the RO in the blind review were produced using AI + human input, and the average time taken to produce AI assisted plans was 1.08 hours. The study demonstrates that AI, in conjunction with human expertise, significantly enhances the efficiency and quality of lung SABR plans for patients, with quality confirmed through blinded evaluation.</p>","PeriodicalId":49837,"journal":{"name":"Medical Dosimetry","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Medical Dosimetry","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meddos.2025.05.008","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This study evaluated the effectiveness of an integrated Artificial Intelligence (AI) planning tool in a lung stereotactic ablative body radiotherapy (SABR) planning workflow. The aim was to determine whether the AI planning tool would facilitate the generation of consistent high-quality plans while simultaneously improving treatment plan efficiency. The study compares clinically treated planner derived lung SABR plans with AI-generated. Nineteen cases planned with traditional planner derived techniques which make up the control cohort human, were re-planned using AI to determine the efficiency and quality of AI generated plans. The study derived a set of AI criteria to create the AI cohort of plans, and further refinement with an additional optimization created AI + human cohort. Each plan was assessed using departmental criteria, including time efficiency, to determine plan quality. The best plans, chosen after a blind review by the treating RO, were documented and analyzed to demonstrate the effectiveness of AI assistance in Lung SABR planning. Ethics approval was given for this study at a local health district level. Across 19 patients, the human cohort showed a total of 3.3% criteria unmet, which dropped to 2.6% for AI assisted plans in the AI cohort. The percentage of unmet goals was further reduced to 1.84% after the addition of manual planner input in AI + human cohort. All plans selected by the RO in the blind review were produced using AI + human input, and the average time taken to produce AI assisted plans was 1.08 hours. The study demonstrates that AI, in conjunction with human expertise, significantly enhances the efficiency and quality of lung SABR plans for patients, with quality confirmed through blinded evaluation.

人工智能在肺SABR规划中的临床疗效对比回顾性分析。
本研究评估了综合人工智能(AI)规划工具在肺立体定向消融体放疗(SABR)规划工作流程中的有效性。目的是确定人工智能计划工具是否有助于生成一致的高质量计划,同时提高治疗计划效率。该研究比较了临床治疗计划者制定的肺SABR计划与人工智能生成的计划。利用人工智能技术重新规划了19个由传统计划器衍生技术规划的病例,这些病例构成了控制队列,以确定人工智能生成计划的效率和质量。该研究导出了一套人工智能标准来创建人工智能队列计划,并通过进一步优化创建了人工智能 + 人类队列。每个计划都使用部门标准进行评估,包括时间效率,以确定计划的质量。经过治疗RO的盲检后选择的最佳计划被记录和分析,以证明人工智能在肺部SABR计划中的有效性。本研究在地方卫生区一级获得了伦理批准。在19名患者中,人类队列显示总共有3.3%的标准未满足,而在人工智能队列中,人工智能辅助计划的标准未满足率降至2.6%。在人工智能 + 人类队列中加入人工计划者输入后,未实现目标的百分比进一步降低到1.84%。盲审中RO选择的所有方案均采用AI + 人工输入生成,AI辅助方案生成的平均时间为1.08小时。该研究表明,人工智能与人类专业知识相结合,显著提高了患者肺部SABR计划的效率和质量,并通过盲法评估证实了质量。
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
Medical Dosimetry
Medical Dosimetry 医学-核医学
CiteScore
2.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
51
审稿时长
34 days
期刊介绍: Medical Dosimetry, the official journal of the American Association of Medical Dosimetrists, is the key source of information on new developments for the medical dosimetrist. Practical and comprehensive in coverage, the journal features original contributions and review articles by medical dosimetrists, oncologists, physicists, and radiation therapy technologists on clinical applications and techniques of external beam, interstitial, intracavitary and intraluminal irradiation in cancer management. Articles dealing primarily with physics will be reviewed by a specially appointed team of experts in the field.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信