Evaluation of a commercial deep-learning-based contouring software for CT-based gynecological brachytherapy.

IF 1.8
Haechan J Yang, John Patrick, Jason Vickress, David D'Souza, Vikram Velker, Lucas Mendez, Maria Mansur Starling, Aaron Fenster, Douglas Hoover
{"title":"Evaluation of a commercial deep-learning-based contouring software for CT-based gynecological brachytherapy.","authors":"Haechan J Yang, John Patrick, Jason Vickress, David D'Souza, Vikram Velker, Lucas Mendez, Maria Mansur Starling, Aaron Fenster, Douglas Hoover","doi":"10.1016/j.brachy.2025.08.005","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To evaluate a commercial deep-learning based auto-contouring software specifically trained for high-dose-rate gynecological brachytherapy.</p><p><strong>Methods and materials: </strong>We collected CT images from 30 patients treated with gynecological brachytherapy (19.5-28 Gy in 3-4 fractions) at our institution from January 2018 to December 2022. Clinical and artificial intelligence (AI) generated contours for bladder, bowel, rectum, and sigmoid were obtained. Five patients were randomly selected from the test set and manually re-contoured by 4 radiation oncologists. Contouring was repeated 2 weeks later using AI contours as the starting point (\"AI-assisted\" approach). Comparisons amongst clinical, AI, AI-assisted, and manual retrospective contours were made using various metrics, including Dice similarity coefficient (DSC) and unsigned D2cc difference.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Between clinical and AI contours, DSC was 0.92, 0.79, 0.62, 0.66, for bladder, rectum, sigmoid, and bowel, respectively. Rectum and sigmoid had the lowest median unsigned D2cc difference of 0.20 and 0.21 Gy/fraction respectively between clinical and AI contours, while bowel had the largest median difference of 0.38 Gy/fraction. Agreement between fully automated AI and clinical contours was generally not different compared to agreement between AI-assisted and clinical contours. AI-assisted interobserver agreement was better than manual interobserver agreement for all organs and metrics. The median time to contour all organs for manual and AI-assisted approaches was 14.8 and 6.9 minutes/patient (p < 0.001), respectively.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The agreement between AI or AI-assisted contours against the clinical contours was similar to manual interobserver agreement. Implementation of the AI-assisted contouring approach could enhance clinical workflow by decreasing both contouring time and interobserver variability.</p>","PeriodicalId":93914,"journal":{"name":"Brachytherapy","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Brachytherapy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brachy.2025.08.005","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: To evaluate a commercial deep-learning based auto-contouring software specifically trained for high-dose-rate gynecological brachytherapy.

Methods and materials: We collected CT images from 30 patients treated with gynecological brachytherapy (19.5-28 Gy in 3-4 fractions) at our institution from January 2018 to December 2022. Clinical and artificial intelligence (AI) generated contours for bladder, bowel, rectum, and sigmoid were obtained. Five patients were randomly selected from the test set and manually re-contoured by 4 radiation oncologists. Contouring was repeated 2 weeks later using AI contours as the starting point ("AI-assisted" approach). Comparisons amongst clinical, AI, AI-assisted, and manual retrospective contours were made using various metrics, including Dice similarity coefficient (DSC) and unsigned D2cc difference.

Results: Between clinical and AI contours, DSC was 0.92, 0.79, 0.62, 0.66, for bladder, rectum, sigmoid, and bowel, respectively. Rectum and sigmoid had the lowest median unsigned D2cc difference of 0.20 and 0.21 Gy/fraction respectively between clinical and AI contours, while bowel had the largest median difference of 0.38 Gy/fraction. Agreement between fully automated AI and clinical contours was generally not different compared to agreement between AI-assisted and clinical contours. AI-assisted interobserver agreement was better than manual interobserver agreement for all organs and metrics. The median time to contour all organs for manual and AI-assisted approaches was 14.8 and 6.9 minutes/patient (p < 0.001), respectively.

Conclusions: The agreement between AI or AI-assisted contours against the clinical contours was similar to manual interobserver agreement. Implementation of the AI-assisted contouring approach could enhance clinical workflow by decreasing both contouring time and interobserver variability.

基于ct的妇科近距离放射治疗的商用深度学习轮廓软件的评估。
目的:评估一种商业的基于深度学习的自动轮廓软件,该软件专门用于高剂量率妇科近距离治疗。方法与材料:收集2018年1月至2022年12月在我院接受妇科近距离放射治疗(19.5-28 Gy,分3-4组)的30例患者的CT图像。获得临床和人工智能(AI)生成的膀胱、肠、直肠和乙状结肠轮廓。从测试集中随机选择5例患者,由4名放射肿瘤学家手动重新勾画。2周后使用人工智能轮廓作为起点(“人工智能辅助”方法)重复轮廓。临床、人工智能、人工智能辅助和手动回顾性轮廓之间的比较使用各种指标,包括Dice相似系数(DSC)和无符号D2cc差异。结果:膀胱、直肠、乙状结肠和肠道的DSC在临床和AI轮廓之间分别为0.92、0.79、0.62、0.66。直肠和乙状结肠的无征D2cc中位数与临床和AI轮廓的差异最低,分别为0.20和0.21 Gy/fraction,而肠的中位数差异最大,为0.38 Gy/fraction。与人工智能辅助与临床轮廓的一致性相比,全自动人工智能与临床轮廓之间的一致性通常没有什么不同。在所有器官和指标上,人工智能辅助的观察者间协议优于人工观察者间协议。人工和人工智能辅助入路对所有器官轮廓的中位时间分别为14.8分钟和6.9分钟/患者(p )。结论:人工智能或人工智能辅助轮廓与临床轮廓的一致性与人工观察者间的一致性相似。人工智能辅助轮廓方法的实施可以通过减少轮廓时间和观察者之间的可变性来增强临床工作流程。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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