BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: To investigate the dosimetric impact of not editing auto-contours of the elective neck and organs at risk (OAR), generated with atlas-based autosegmentation (ABAS) (Elekta software) for head and neck cancer patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: For nine patients ABAS auto-contours and auto-contours edited by two observers were available. Based on the non-edited auto-contours clinically acceptable IMRT plans were constructed (designated 'ABAS plans'). These plans were then evaluated for the two edited structure sets, by quantifying the percentage of the neck-PTV receiving more than 95% of the prescribed dose (V(95)) and the near-minimum dose (D(99)) in the neck PTV. Dice coefficients and mean contour distances were calculated to quantify the similarity of ABAS auto-contours with the structure sets edited by observer 1 and observer 2. To study the dosimetric importance of editing OAR auto-contours a new IMRT plan was generated for each patient-observer combination, based on the observer's edited CTV and the non-edited salivary gland auto-contours. For each plan mean doses for the non-edited glands were compared with doses for the same glands edited by the observer. RESULTS: For both observers, edited neck CTVs were larger than ABAS auto-contours (p≤ 0.04), by a mean of 8.7%. When evaluating ABAS plans on the PTVs of the edited structure sets, V(95) reduced by 7.2%±5.4% (1 SD) (p<0.03). The mean reduction in D(99) was 14.2 Gy (range 1-54 Gy). Even for Dice coefficients >0.8 and mean contour distances <1mm, reductions in D(99) up to 11Gy were observed. For treatment plans based on observer PTVs and non-edited auto-contoured salivary glands, the mean doses in the edited glands differed by only -0.6 Gy±1.0 Gy (p=0.06). CONCLUSIONS: Editing of auto-contoured neck CTVs generated by ABAS is required to avoid large underdosages in target volumes. Often used similarity measures for evaluation of auto-contouring algorithms, such as dice coefficients, do not predict well for expected PTV underdose. Editing of salivary glands is less important as mean doses achieved for non-edited glands predict well for edited structures.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: To investigate the dosimetric impact of not editing auto-contours of the elective neck and organs at risk (OAR), generated with atlas-based autosegmentation (ABAS) (Elekta software) for head and neck cancerpatients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: For nine patientsABAS auto-contours and auto-contours edited by two observers were available. Based on the non-edited auto-contours clinically acceptable IMRT plans were constructed (designated 'ABAS plans'). These plans were then evaluated for the two edited structure sets, by quantifying the percentage of the neck-PTV receiving more than 95% of the prescribed dose (V(95)) and the near-minimum dose (D(99)) in the neck PTV. Dice coefficients and mean contour distances were calculated to quantify the similarity of ABAS auto-contours with the structure sets edited by observer 1 and observer 2. To study the dosimetric importance of editing OAR auto-contours a new IMRT plan was generated for each patient-observer combination, based on the observer's edited CTV and the non-edited salivary gland auto-contours. For each plan mean doses for the non-edited glands were compared with doses for the same glands edited by the observer. RESULTS: For both observers, edited neck CTVs were larger than ABAS auto-contours (p≤ 0.04), by a mean of 8.7%. When evaluating ABAS plans on the PTVs of the edited structure sets, V(95) reduced by 7.2%±5.4% (1 SD) (p<0.03). The mean reduction in D(99) was 14.2 Gy (range 1-54 Gy). Even for Dice coefficients >0.8 and mean contour distances <1mm, reductions in D(99) up to 11Gy were observed. For treatment plans based on observer PTVs and non-edited auto-contoured salivary glands, the mean doses in the edited glands differed by only -0.6 Gy±1.0 Gy (p=0.06). CONCLUSIONS: Editing of auto-contoured neck CTVs generated by ABAS is required to avoid large underdosages in target volumes. Often used similarity measures for evaluation of auto-contouring algorithms, such as dice coefficients, do not predict well for expected PTV underdose. Editing of salivary glands is less important as mean doses achieved for non-edited glands predict well for edited structures.
Authors: Xingyu Wu; Jayaram K Udupa; Yubing Tong; Dewey Odhner; Gargi V Pednekar; Charles B Simone; David McLaughlin; Chavanon Apinorasethkul; John Lukens; Dimitris Mihailidis; Geraldine Shammo; Paul James; Joseph Camaratta; Drew A Torigian Journal: Proc SPIE Int Soc Opt Eng Date: 2018-03-13
Authors: Jinzhong Yang; Wendy A Woodward; Valerie K Reed; Eric A Strom; George H Perkins; Welela Tereffe; Thomas A Buchholz; Lifei Zhang; Peter Balter; Laurence E Court; X Allen Li; Lei Dong Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2014-03-07 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Musaddiq Awan; Brandon Alan Dyer; Jayashree Kalpathy-Cramer; Eva Bongers; Max Dahele; Jinzhong Yang; Gary V Walker; Nikhil G Thaker; Emma Holliday; Andrew J Bishop; Charles R Thomas; David I Rosenthal; Clifton David Fuller Journal: Acta Oncol Date: 2014-10-03 Impact factor: 4.089
Authors: Xingyu Wu; Jayaram K Udupa; Yubing Tong; Dewey Odhner; Gargi V Pednekar; Charles B Simone; David McLaughlin; Chavanon Apinorasethkul; Ontida Apinorasethkul; John Lukens; Dimitris Mihailidis; Geraldine Shammo; Paul James; Akhil Tiwari; Lisa Wojtowicz; Joseph Camaratta; Drew A Torigian Journal: Med Image Anal Date: 2019-01-29 Impact factor: 8.545
Authors: Gary V Walker; Musaddiq Awan; Randa Tao; Eugene J Koay; Nicholas S Boehling; Jonathan D Grant; Dean F Sittig; Gary Brandon Gunn; Adam S Garden; Jack Phan; William H Morrison; David I Rosenthal; Abdallah Sherif Radwan Mohamed; Clifton David Fuller Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2014-09-09 Impact factor: 6.280
Authors: Nicholas Hardcastle; Wolfgang A Tomé; Donald M Cannon; Charlotte L Brouwer; Paul W H Wittendorp; Nesrin Dogan; Matthias Guckenberger; Stéphane Allaire; Yogish Mallya; Prashant Kumar; Markus Oechsner; Anne Richter; Shiyu Song; Michael Myers; Bülent Polat; Karl Bzdusek Journal: Radiat Oncol Date: 2012-06-15 Impact factor: 3.481