鼻咽癌放疗中危险器官自动分割的患者特异性自动质量保证。

IF 2.5 4区 医学 Q3 ONCOLOGY
Yixuan Wang, Jiang Hu, Lixin Chen, Dandan Zhang, Jinhan Zhu
{"title":"鼻咽癌放疗中危险器官自动分割的患者特异性自动质量保证。","authors":"Yixuan Wang, Jiang Hu, Lixin Chen, Dandan Zhang, Jinhan Zhu","doi":"10.1177/10732748251318387","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Precision radiotherapy relies on accurate segmentation of tumor targets and organs at risk (OARs). Clinicians manually review automatically delineated structures on a case-by-case basis, a time-consuming process dependent on reviewer experience and alertness. This study proposes a general process for automated threshold generation for structural evaluation indicators and patient-specific quality assurance (QA) for automated segmentation of nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The patient-specific QA process for automated segmentation involves determining the confidence limit and error structure highlight stage. Three expert physicians segmented 17 OARs using computed tomography images of NPC and compared them using the Dice similarity coefficient, the maximum Hausdorff distance, and the mean distance to agreement. For each OAR, the 95% confidence interval was calculated as the confidence limit for each indicator. If two or more evaluation indicators (N2) or one or more evaluation indicators (N1) exceeded the confidence limits, the structure segmentation result was considered abnormal. The quantitative performances of these two methods were compared with those obtained by artificially introducing small/medium and serious errors.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The sensitivity, specificity, balanced accuracy, and F-score values for N2 were 0.944 ± 0.052, 0.827 ± 0.149, 0.886 ± 0.076, and 0.936 ± 0.045, respectively, whereas those for N1 were 0.955 ± 0.045, 0.788 ± 0.189, 0.878 ± 0.096, and 0.948 ± 0.035, respectively. N2 and N1 had small/medium error detection rates of 97.67 ± 0.04% and 98.67 ± 0.04%, respectively, with a serious error detection rate of 100%.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The proposed automated patient-specific QA process effectively detected segmentation abnormalities, particularly serious errors. These are crucial for enhancing review efficiency and automated segmentation, and for improving physician confidence in automated segmentation.</p>","PeriodicalId":49093,"journal":{"name":"Cancer Control","volume":"32 ","pages":"10732748251318387"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11792024/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Automated Patient-specific Quality Assurance for Automated Segmentation of Organs at Risk in Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma Radiotherapy.\",\"authors\":\"Yixuan Wang, Jiang Hu, Lixin Chen, Dandan Zhang, Jinhan Zhu\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/10732748251318387\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Precision radiotherapy relies on accurate segmentation of tumor targets and organs at risk (OARs). Clinicians manually review automatically delineated structures on a case-by-case basis, a time-consuming process dependent on reviewer experience and alertness. This study proposes a general process for automated threshold generation for structural evaluation indicators and patient-specific quality assurance (QA) for automated segmentation of nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The patient-specific QA process for automated segmentation involves determining the confidence limit and error structure highlight stage. Three expert physicians segmented 17 OARs using computed tomography images of NPC and compared them using the Dice similarity coefficient, the maximum Hausdorff distance, and the mean distance to agreement. For each OAR, the 95% confidence interval was calculated as the confidence limit for each indicator. If two or more evaluation indicators (N2) or one or more evaluation indicators (N1) exceeded the confidence limits, the structure segmentation result was considered abnormal. The quantitative performances of these two methods were compared with those obtained by artificially introducing small/medium and serious errors.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The sensitivity, specificity, balanced accuracy, and F-score values for N2 were 0.944 ± 0.052, 0.827 ± 0.149, 0.886 ± 0.076, and 0.936 ± 0.045, respectively, whereas those for N1 were 0.955 ± 0.045, 0.788 ± 0.189, 0.878 ± 0.096, and 0.948 ± 0.035, respectively. N2 and N1 had small/medium error detection rates of 97.67 ± 0.04% and 98.67 ± 0.04%, respectively, with a serious error detection rate of 100%.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The proposed automated patient-specific QA process effectively detected segmentation abnormalities, particularly serious errors. These are crucial for enhancing review efficiency and automated segmentation, and for improving physician confidence in automated segmentation.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":49093,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Cancer Control\",\"volume\":\"32 \",\"pages\":\"10732748251318387\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11792024/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Cancer Control\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/10732748251318387\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"ONCOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cancer Control","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10732748251318387","RegionNum":4,"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

摘要

精确放疗依赖于肿瘤靶和危险器官(OARs)的准确分割。临床医生在个案的基础上手动审查自动描述的结构,这是一个耗时的过程,取决于审稿人的经验和警觉性。本研究提出了用于鼻咽癌(NPC)自动分割的结构评估指标和患者特异性质量保证(QA)的自动阈值生成的一般过程。方法:针对患者的自动分割质量保证过程包括确定置信限和错误结构突出阶段。三位专家医师使用鼻咽癌的计算机断层图像分割了17个桨,并使用Dice相似系数、最大Hausdorff距离和平均一致距离对它们进行了比较。对于每个OAR,计算95%置信区间作为每个指标的置信限。如果两个或多个评价指标(N2)或一个或多个评价指标(N1)超过置信限,则认为结构分割结果异常。比较了人为引入中小误差和严重误差后两种方法的定量性能。结果:N2的敏感性、特异度、平衡准确度和f评分分别为0.944±0.052、0.827±0.149、0.886±0.076和0.936±0.045,N1的敏感性、特异度、平衡准确度和f评分分别为0.955±0.045、0.788±0.189、0.878±0.096和0.948±0.035。N2、N1的中小检错率分别为97.67±0.04%、98.67±0.04%,严重检错率为100%。结论:提出的针对患者的自动化QA流程有效地检测了分割异常,特别是严重的错误。这些对于提高审查效率和自动分割以及提高医生对自动分割的信心至关重要。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Automated Patient-specific Quality Assurance for Automated Segmentation of Organs at Risk in Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma Radiotherapy.

Introduction: Precision radiotherapy relies on accurate segmentation of tumor targets and organs at risk (OARs). Clinicians manually review automatically delineated structures on a case-by-case basis, a time-consuming process dependent on reviewer experience and alertness. This study proposes a general process for automated threshold generation for structural evaluation indicators and patient-specific quality assurance (QA) for automated segmentation of nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC).

Methods: The patient-specific QA process for automated segmentation involves determining the confidence limit and error structure highlight stage. Three expert physicians segmented 17 OARs using computed tomography images of NPC and compared them using the Dice similarity coefficient, the maximum Hausdorff distance, and the mean distance to agreement. For each OAR, the 95% confidence interval was calculated as the confidence limit for each indicator. If two or more evaluation indicators (N2) or one or more evaluation indicators (N1) exceeded the confidence limits, the structure segmentation result was considered abnormal. The quantitative performances of these two methods were compared with those obtained by artificially introducing small/medium and serious errors.

Results: The sensitivity, specificity, balanced accuracy, and F-score values for N2 were 0.944 ± 0.052, 0.827 ± 0.149, 0.886 ± 0.076, and 0.936 ± 0.045, respectively, whereas those for N1 were 0.955 ± 0.045, 0.788 ± 0.189, 0.878 ± 0.096, and 0.948 ± 0.035, respectively. N2 and N1 had small/medium error detection rates of 97.67 ± 0.04% and 98.67 ± 0.04%, respectively, with a serious error detection rate of 100%.

Conclusion: The proposed automated patient-specific QA process effectively detected segmentation abnormalities, particularly serious errors. These are crucial for enhancing review efficiency and automated segmentation, and for improving physician confidence in automated segmentation.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Cancer Control
Cancer Control ONCOLOGY-
CiteScore
3.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
148
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Cancer Control is a JCR-ranked, peer-reviewed open access journal whose mission is to advance the prevention, detection, diagnosis, treatment, and palliative care of cancer by enabling researchers, doctors, policymakers, and other healthcare professionals to freely share research along the cancer control continuum. Our vision is a world where gold-standard cancer care is the norm, not the exception.
×
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