Andrew Hope, Michelle Mundis, Jan-Jakob Sonke, John Kang, Stine Korreman, Brian Napolitano, Sharif Elguindi, Michael C. Joiner, Jay Burmeister, Michael M. Dominello
{"title":"三学科协同放射治疗(3DCRT)专题辩论:人工智能结构分割优于临床医生对桨和靶的轮廓","authors":"Andrew Hope, Michelle Mundis, Jan-Jakob Sonke, John Kang, Stine Korreman, Brian Napolitano, Sharif Elguindi, Michael C. Joiner, Jay Burmeister, Michael M. Dominello","doi":"10.1002/acm2.70183","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Radiation Oncology is a highly multidisciplinary medical specialty, drawing significantly from three scientific disciplines—medicine, physics, and biology. As a result, discussion of controversies or changes in practice within radiation oncology involves input from all three disciplines, and sometimes more! For this reason, significant effort has been expended recently to foster collaborative multidisciplinary research in radiation oncology, with substantial demonstrated benefit. In light of these results, we endeavor here to adopt this “team-science” approach to the traditional debates featured in this journal. This article is part of the series of special JACMP debates entitled “Three Discipline Collaborative Radiation Therapy (3DCRT)” in which each debate team typically includes a radiation oncologist, a medical physicist, and a radiobiologist. In this case, we have included a medical dosimetrist. We hope that this format will not only be engaging for the readership but will also foster further collaboration in the science and clinical practice of radiation oncology and developments thereof.</p><p>Artificial intelligence (AI) is ubiquitous. The applications are limitless and the effects are permeative. The use of AI for contouring of organs at risk (OARs) has been in the works now for many years, however as algorithms have improved and adaptive replanning is becoming increasingly prevalent in the clinic, physicians and radiation oncology teams are increasingly reliant on software for auto contouring, including in certain scenarios for contouring targets. In this debate, we consider the risks and benefits of this progression towards increased contouring by AI. At what point does the machine definitively outperform the clinician? Are we there yet? For this debate we will argue exactly this point through the proposition, “AI structure segmentation is <i>better</i> than clinician contouring for both OARs and targets.” Arguing for the proposition will be John Kang, Stine Korreman, Brian Napolitano, and Sharif Elguindi. John Kang, MD, PhD, is an assistant professor in radiation oncology in the University of Washington Department of Radiation Oncology and the Fred Hutch Cancer Center. He is dual board certified in radiation oncology and clinical informatics and serves as clinical informatics lead. His clinical focus is on thoracic malignancies and his research focus is on natural language processing and informatics applications. Stine S Korreman, PhD, is Professor of Medical Physics at Aarhus University, Denmark. She leads a research group on AI for medical image analysis in radiotherapy with a focus on segmentation and dose prediction, and translation from research to clinical practice. She is chair of the ESTRO Focus Group AI in Radiotherapy and Director of the ESTRO course on AI in Radiotherapy. Brian Napolitano, MHL, CMD is Director of Medical Dosimetry at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, where he oversees treatment planning operations for photon and proton modalities at their main campus and satellite facilities. Brian is a former president of the American Association of Medical Dosimetrists (AAMD) and was the 2024 recipient of the AAMD Outstanding Achievement Award. He received his Bachelor of Science degree in Biological Sciences from Binghamton University and his Master of Healthcare Leadership degree from Brown University. Lastly, Sharif Elguindi, MS, DABR, is a Medical Physicist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center where he serves as the AI clinical implementation lead. Together with his team, he has helped design, develop, and maintain an AI-assisted contouring system that improves workflow efficiencies for over 10 000 treatments annually. His professional interests focus on designing and implementing software systems that support AI-assisted target workflows for physicians.</p><p>Arguing against the propostion will be Andrew Hope, Michelle Mundis, and Jan-Jakob Sonke. Andrew Hope, MD, FRCPC, is a Clinician Investigator in the Radiation Medicine Program, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, Associate Professor in the Department of Radiation Oncology at University of Toronto and the Addie MacNaughton Chair in Thoracic Radiation Oncology. His research focuses on developing, deploying, and evaluating novel AI applications and other advanced technologies in the clinic. Michelle Mundis, MS, CMD, is a senior dosimetrist at Maryland Proton Treatment Center (MPTC). She has over 10 years of experience in radiation oncology, including roles as field service engineer, Varian Medical Systems, Medical Physics Assistant, and Clinical Coordinator for the University of Maryland Dosimetry Program. She currently serves as Secretary on the Board of Directors of the American Association of Medical Dosimetrists. Jan-Jakob Sonke, PhD, leads a research group on adaptive radiotherapy at the Netherlands Cancer Institute (NKI). He is also the theme lead for image guided therapy at the NKI and full professor at the University of Amsterdam. He is one of the scientific directors of two labs focusing on the development of innovative AI algorithms for oncology and radiation therapy.</p><p>The first seven authors contributed equally to this work. All authors were responsible for preparation of arguments and in writing and reviewing the manuscript.</p><p>Sharif Elguindi has two patents pending, one on an AI foundation model for 3D medical image segmentation and one for AI inference and quality assurance software.</p>","PeriodicalId":14989,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics","volume":"26 7","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/acm2.70183","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Three discipline collaborative radiation therapy (3DCRT) special debate: AI structure segmentation is better than clinician contouring for both OARs and targets\",\"authors\":\"Andrew Hope, Michelle Mundis, Jan-Jakob Sonke, John Kang, Stine Korreman, Brian Napolitano, Sharif Elguindi, Michael C. Joiner, Jay Burmeister, Michael M. Dominello\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/acm2.70183\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>Radiation Oncology is a highly multidisciplinary medical specialty, drawing significantly from three scientific disciplines—medicine, physics, and biology. As a result, discussion of controversies or changes in practice within radiation oncology involves input from all three disciplines, and sometimes more! For this reason, significant effort has been expended recently to foster collaborative multidisciplinary research in radiation oncology, with substantial demonstrated benefit. In light of these results, we endeavor here to adopt this “team-science” approach to the traditional debates featured in this journal. This article is part of the series of special JACMP debates entitled “Three Discipline Collaborative Radiation Therapy (3DCRT)” in which each debate team typically includes a radiation oncologist, a medical physicist, and a radiobiologist. In this case, we have included a medical dosimetrist. We hope that this format will not only be engaging for the readership but will also foster further collaboration in the science and clinical practice of radiation oncology and developments thereof.</p><p>Artificial intelligence (AI) is ubiquitous. The applications are limitless and the effects are permeative. The use of AI for contouring of organs at risk (OARs) has been in the works now for many years, however as algorithms have improved and adaptive replanning is becoming increasingly prevalent in the clinic, physicians and radiation oncology teams are increasingly reliant on software for auto contouring, including in certain scenarios for contouring targets. In this debate, we consider the risks and benefits of this progression towards increased contouring by AI. At what point does the machine definitively outperform the clinician? Are we there yet? For this debate we will argue exactly this point through the proposition, “AI structure segmentation is <i>better</i> than clinician contouring for both OARs and targets.” Arguing for the proposition will be John Kang, Stine Korreman, Brian Napolitano, and Sharif Elguindi. John Kang, MD, PhD, is an assistant professor in radiation oncology in the University of Washington Department of Radiation Oncology and the Fred Hutch Cancer Center. He is dual board certified in radiation oncology and clinical informatics and serves as clinical informatics lead. His clinical focus is on thoracic malignancies and his research focus is on natural language processing and informatics applications. Stine S Korreman, PhD, is Professor of Medical Physics at Aarhus University, Denmark. She leads a research group on AI for medical image analysis in radiotherapy with a focus on segmentation and dose prediction, and translation from research to clinical practice. She is chair of the ESTRO Focus Group AI in Radiotherapy and Director of the ESTRO course on AI in Radiotherapy. Brian Napolitano, MHL, CMD is Director of Medical Dosimetry at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, where he oversees treatment planning operations for photon and proton modalities at their main campus and satellite facilities. Brian is a former president of the American Association of Medical Dosimetrists (AAMD) and was the 2024 recipient of the AAMD Outstanding Achievement Award. He received his Bachelor of Science degree in Biological Sciences from Binghamton University and his Master of Healthcare Leadership degree from Brown University. Lastly, Sharif Elguindi, MS, DABR, is a Medical Physicist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center where he serves as the AI clinical implementation lead. Together with his team, he has helped design, develop, and maintain an AI-assisted contouring system that improves workflow efficiencies for over 10 000 treatments annually. His professional interests focus on designing and implementing software systems that support AI-assisted target workflows for physicians.</p><p>Arguing against the propostion will be Andrew Hope, Michelle Mundis, and Jan-Jakob Sonke. Andrew Hope, MD, FRCPC, is a Clinician Investigator in the Radiation Medicine Program, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, Associate Professor in the Department of Radiation Oncology at University of Toronto and the Addie MacNaughton Chair in Thoracic Radiation Oncology. His research focuses on developing, deploying, and evaluating novel AI applications and other advanced technologies in the clinic. Michelle Mundis, MS, CMD, is a senior dosimetrist at Maryland Proton Treatment Center (MPTC). She has over 10 years of experience in radiation oncology, including roles as field service engineer, Varian Medical Systems, Medical Physics Assistant, and Clinical Coordinator for the University of Maryland Dosimetry Program. She currently serves as Secretary on the Board of Directors of the American Association of Medical Dosimetrists. Jan-Jakob Sonke, PhD, leads a research group on adaptive radiotherapy at the Netherlands Cancer Institute (NKI). He is also the theme lead for image guided therapy at the NKI and full professor at the University of Amsterdam. He is one of the scientific directors of two labs focusing on the development of innovative AI algorithms for oncology and radiation therapy.</p><p>The first seven authors contributed equally to this work. All authors were responsible for preparation of arguments and in writing and reviewing the manuscript.</p><p>Sharif Elguindi has two patents pending, one on an AI foundation model for 3D medical image segmentation and one for AI inference and quality assurance software.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":14989,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics\",\"volume\":\"26 7\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-07-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/acm2.70183\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/acm2.70183\",\"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}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/acm2.70183","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
摘要
放射肿瘤学是一个高度多学科的医学专业,主要涉及医学、物理学和生物学三个科学学科。因此,讨论放射肿瘤学实践中的争议或变化涉及所有三个学科,有时甚至更多!由于这个原因,最近已经花费了大量的努力来促进放射肿瘤学的多学科合作研究,并取得了实质性的成果。鉴于这些结果,我们在这里努力采用这种“团队科学”的方法来处理本刊的传统辩论。本文是JACMP“三学科协同放射治疗(3DCRT)”系列特别辩论的一部分,每个辩论队通常包括一名放射肿瘤学家、一名医学物理学家和一名放射生物学家。在这个案例中,我们包括了一名医疗剂量师。我们希望这种形式不仅能吸引读者,而且能促进放射肿瘤学的科学和临床实践及其发展方面的进一步合作。人工智能(AI)无处不在。应用是无限的,效果是渗透的。人工智能用于危险器官(OARs)轮廓的研究已经进行了多年,然而,随着算法的改进和自适应重新规划在诊所变得越来越普遍,医生和放射肿瘤学团队越来越依赖于自动轮廓的软件,包括在某些情况下轮廓目标。在这场辩论中,我们考虑了人工智能增加轮廓的风险和好处。在什么情况下,机器的表现绝对优于临床医生?我们到了吗?在这场辩论中,我们将通过命题来论证这一点,“对于桨和目标,人工智能结构分割比临床医生的轮廓更好。”支持这一提议的将是约翰·康、斯坦·科尔曼、布莱恩·纳波利塔诺和谢里夫·埃尔古迪。John Kang,医学博士,华盛顿大学放射肿瘤系和Fred Hutch癌症中心放射肿瘤学助理教授。他是放射肿瘤学和临床信息学的双委员会认证,并担任临床信息学主管。他的临床重点是胸部恶性肿瘤,他的研究重点是自然语言处理和信息学应用。Stine S Korreman博士,丹麦奥胡斯大学医学物理学教授。她领导了一个人工智能研究小组,研究放射治疗中的医学图像分析,重点是分割和剂量预测,以及从研究到临床实践的转化。她是ESTRO放射治疗中的人工智能焦点小组主席和ESTRO放射治疗中的人工智能课程主任。Brian Napolitano, MHL, CMD是波士顿马萨诸塞州总医院的医学剂量学主任,负责监督其主校区和卫星设施的光子和质子模式的治疗计划操作。Brian是美国医学剂量测定师协会(AAMD)的前主席,并于2024年获得AAMD杰出成就奖。他获得Binghamton University的生物科学学士学位和Brown University的医疗保健领导硕士学位。最后,Sharif Elguindi, MS, DABR,是纪念斯隆凯特琳癌症中心的医学物理学家,在那里他担任人工智能临床实施主管。与他的团队一起,他帮助设计、开发和维护了一个人工智能辅助轮廓系统,该系统每年可提高超过10,000次治疗的工作流程效率。他的专业兴趣集中在为医生设计和实施支持人工智能辅助目标工作流程的软件系统。反对这一提议的将是安德鲁·霍普、米歇尔·芒迪斯和扬-雅各布·松克。安德鲁·霍普,医学博士,FRCPC,是玛格丽特公主癌症中心放射医学项目的临床研究员,多伦多大学放射肿瘤系副教授和胸部放射肿瘤学的Addie MacNaughton主席。他的研究重点是开发、部署和评估新的人工智能应用和其他先进技术在临床中的应用。Michelle Mundis, MS, CMD,是马里兰质子治疗中心(MPTC)的高级剂量师。她在放射肿瘤学方面拥有超过10年的经验,包括担任现场服务工程师,Varian医疗系统,医学物理助理和马里兰大学剂量学计划的临床协调员。她目前担任the American Association of Medical dose trists的董事会秘书。Jan-Jakob Sonke博士是荷兰癌症研究所(NKI)适应性放疗研究小组的负责人。 他也是NKI图像引导疗法的主题负责人和阿姆斯特丹大学的正教授。他是两个实验室的科学主任之一,专注于为肿瘤学和放射治疗开发创新的人工智能算法。前七位作者对这项工作的贡献相同。所有的作者都负责准备论点,并撰写和审查手稿。Sharif Elguindi有两项专利正在申请中,一项是用于3D医学图像分割的人工智能基础模型,另一项是用于人工智能推理和质量保证软件。
Three discipline collaborative radiation therapy (3DCRT) special debate: AI structure segmentation is better than clinician contouring for both OARs and targets
Radiation Oncology is a highly multidisciplinary medical specialty, drawing significantly from three scientific disciplines—medicine, physics, and biology. As a result, discussion of controversies or changes in practice within radiation oncology involves input from all three disciplines, and sometimes more! For this reason, significant effort has been expended recently to foster collaborative multidisciplinary research in radiation oncology, with substantial demonstrated benefit. In light of these results, we endeavor here to adopt this “team-science” approach to the traditional debates featured in this journal. This article is part of the series of special JACMP debates entitled “Three Discipline Collaborative Radiation Therapy (3DCRT)” in which each debate team typically includes a radiation oncologist, a medical physicist, and a radiobiologist. In this case, we have included a medical dosimetrist. We hope that this format will not only be engaging for the readership but will also foster further collaboration in the science and clinical practice of radiation oncology and developments thereof.
Artificial intelligence (AI) is ubiquitous. The applications are limitless and the effects are permeative. The use of AI for contouring of organs at risk (OARs) has been in the works now for many years, however as algorithms have improved and adaptive replanning is becoming increasingly prevalent in the clinic, physicians and radiation oncology teams are increasingly reliant on software for auto contouring, including in certain scenarios for contouring targets. In this debate, we consider the risks and benefits of this progression towards increased contouring by AI. At what point does the machine definitively outperform the clinician? Are we there yet? For this debate we will argue exactly this point through the proposition, “AI structure segmentation is better than clinician contouring for both OARs and targets.” Arguing for the proposition will be John Kang, Stine Korreman, Brian Napolitano, and Sharif Elguindi. John Kang, MD, PhD, is an assistant professor in radiation oncology in the University of Washington Department of Radiation Oncology and the Fred Hutch Cancer Center. He is dual board certified in radiation oncology and clinical informatics and serves as clinical informatics lead. His clinical focus is on thoracic malignancies and his research focus is on natural language processing and informatics applications. Stine S Korreman, PhD, is Professor of Medical Physics at Aarhus University, Denmark. She leads a research group on AI for medical image analysis in radiotherapy with a focus on segmentation and dose prediction, and translation from research to clinical practice. She is chair of the ESTRO Focus Group AI in Radiotherapy and Director of the ESTRO course on AI in Radiotherapy. Brian Napolitano, MHL, CMD is Director of Medical Dosimetry at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, where he oversees treatment planning operations for photon and proton modalities at their main campus and satellite facilities. Brian is a former president of the American Association of Medical Dosimetrists (AAMD) and was the 2024 recipient of the AAMD Outstanding Achievement Award. He received his Bachelor of Science degree in Biological Sciences from Binghamton University and his Master of Healthcare Leadership degree from Brown University. Lastly, Sharif Elguindi, MS, DABR, is a Medical Physicist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center where he serves as the AI clinical implementation lead. Together with his team, he has helped design, develop, and maintain an AI-assisted contouring system that improves workflow efficiencies for over 10 000 treatments annually. His professional interests focus on designing and implementing software systems that support AI-assisted target workflows for physicians.
Arguing against the propostion will be Andrew Hope, Michelle Mundis, and Jan-Jakob Sonke. Andrew Hope, MD, FRCPC, is a Clinician Investigator in the Radiation Medicine Program, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, Associate Professor in the Department of Radiation Oncology at University of Toronto and the Addie MacNaughton Chair in Thoracic Radiation Oncology. His research focuses on developing, deploying, and evaluating novel AI applications and other advanced technologies in the clinic. Michelle Mundis, MS, CMD, is a senior dosimetrist at Maryland Proton Treatment Center (MPTC). She has over 10 years of experience in radiation oncology, including roles as field service engineer, Varian Medical Systems, Medical Physics Assistant, and Clinical Coordinator for the University of Maryland Dosimetry Program. She currently serves as Secretary on the Board of Directors of the American Association of Medical Dosimetrists. Jan-Jakob Sonke, PhD, leads a research group on adaptive radiotherapy at the Netherlands Cancer Institute (NKI). He is also the theme lead for image guided therapy at the NKI and full professor at the University of Amsterdam. He is one of the scientific directors of two labs focusing on the development of innovative AI algorithms for oncology and radiation therapy.
The first seven authors contributed equally to this work. All authors were responsible for preparation of arguments and in writing and reviewing the manuscript.
Sharif Elguindi has two patents pending, one on an AI foundation model for 3D medical image segmentation and one for AI inference and quality assurance software.
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