BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The goal of the current study was to evaluate the commercially available atlas-based autosegmentation software for clinical use in prostate radiotherapy. The accuracy was benchmarked against interobserver variability. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A total of 20 planning computed tomographs (CTs) and 10 cone-beam CTs (CBCTs) were selected for prostate, rectum, and bladder delineation. The images varied regarding to individual (age, body mass index) and setup parameters (contrast agent, rectal balloon, implanted markers). Automatically created contours with ABAS(®) and iPlan(®) were compared to an expert's delineation by calculating the Dice similarity coefficient (DSC) and conformity index. RESULTS: Demo-atlases of both systems showed different results for bladder (DSC(ABAS) 0.86 ± 0.17, DSC(iPlan) 0.51 ± 0.30) and prostate (DSC(ABAS) 0.71 ± 0.14, DSC(iPlan) 0.57 ± 0.19). Rectum delineation (DSC(ABAS) 0.78 ± 0.11, DSC(iPlan) 0.84 ± 0.08) demonstrated differences between the systems but better correlation of the automatically drawn volumes. ABAS(®) was closest to the interobserver benchmark. Autosegmentation with iPlan(®), ABAS(®) and manual segmentation took 0.5, 4 and 15-20 min, respectively. Automatic contouring on CBCT showed high dependence on image quality (DSC bladder 0.54, rectum 0.42, prostate 0.34). CONCLUSION: For clinical routine, efforts are still necessary to either redesign algorithms implemented in autosegmentation or to optimize image quality for CBCT to guarantee required accuracy and time savings for adaptive radiotherapy.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The goal of the current study was to evaluate the commercially available atlas-based autosegmentation software for clinical use in prostate radiotherapy. The accuracy was benchmarked against interobserver variability. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A total of 20 planning computed tomographs (CTs) and 10 cone-beam CTs (CBCTs) were selected for prostate, rectum, and bladder delineation. The images varied regarding to individual (age, body mass index) and setup parameters (contrast agent, rectal balloon, implanted markers). Automatically created contours with ABAS(®) and iPlan(®) were compared to an expert's delineation by calculating the Dice similarity coefficient (DSC) and conformity index. RESULTS: Demo-atlases of both systems showed different results for bladder (DSC(ABAS) 0.86 ± 0.17, DSC(iPlan) 0.51 ± 0.30) and prostate (DSC(ABAS) 0.71 ± 0.14, DSC(iPlan) 0.57 ± 0.19). Rectum delineation (DSC(ABAS) 0.78 ± 0.11, DSC(iPlan) 0.84 ± 0.08) demonstrated differences between the systems but better correlation of the automatically drawn volumes. ABAS(®) was closest to the interobserver benchmark. Autosegmentation with iPlan(®), ABAS(®) and manual segmentation took 0.5, 4 and 15-20 min, respectively. Automatic contouring on CBCT showed high dependence on image quality (DSC bladder 0.54, rectum 0.42, prostate 0.34). CONCLUSION: For clinical routine, efforts are still necessary to either redesign algorithms implemented in autosegmentation or to optimize image quality for CBCT to guarantee required accuracy and time savings for adaptive radiotherapy.
Authors: Xiao Han; Mischa S Hoogeman; Peter C Levendag; Lyndon S Hibbard; David N Teguh; Peter Voet; Andrew C Cowen; Theresa K Wolf Journal: Med Image Comput Comput Assist Interv Date: 2008
Authors: Sofia K Michopoulou; Lena Costaridou; Elias Panagiotopoulos; Robert Speller; George Panayiotakis; Andrew Todd-Pokropek Journal: IEEE Trans Biomed Eng Date: 2009-04-14 Impact factor: 4.538
Authors: Neil G Burnet; Jessica E Scaife; Marina Romanchikova; Simon J Thomas; Amy M Bates; Emma Wong; David J Noble; Leila Ea Shelley; Simon J Bond; Julia R Forman; Andrew Cf Hoole; Gillian C Barnett; Frederic M Brochu; Michael Pd Simmons; Raj Jena; Karl Harrison; Ping Lin Yeap; Amelia Drew; Emma Silvester; Patrick Elwood; Hannah Pullen; Andrew Sultana; Shannon Yk Seah; Megan Z Wilson; Simon G Russell; Richard J Benson; Yvonne L Rimmer; Sarah J Jefferies; Nicolette Taku; Mark Gurnell; Andrew S Powlson; Carola-Bibiane Schönlieb; Xiaohao Cai; Michael Pf Sutcliffe; Michael A Parker Journal: CERN Ideasq J Exp Innov Date: 2017-06
Authors: Gregory Sharp; Karl D Fritscher; Vladimir Pekar; Marta Peroni; Nadya Shusharina; Harini Veeraraghavan; Jinzhong Yang Journal: Med Phys Date: 2014-05 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Joris Van de Velde; Tom Vercauteren; Werner De Gersem; Johan Wouters; Katrien Vandecasteele; Philippe Vuye; Frank Vanpachtenbeke; Katharina D'Herde; Ingrid Kerckaert; Wilfried De Neve; Tom Van Hoof Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2014-04-09 Impact factor: 3.621
Authors: E Le Fur; J P Malhaire; D Baverez; F Delage; M A Perrouin-Verbe; F Schlurmann; S Guerif; G Fournier; O Pradier; A Valeri Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2012-11-11 Impact factor: 3.621
Authors: C G Vos; M Dahele; J R van Sörnsen de Koste; S Senan; I Bahce; M A Paul; E Thunnissen; E F Smit; K J Hartemink Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2013-12-22 Impact factor: 3.621
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: Vikram M Velker; George B Rodrigues; Robert Dinniwell; Jeremiah Hwee; Alexander V Louie Journal: Radiat Oncol Date: 2013-07-25 Impact factor: 3.481
Authors: Joris Van de Velde; Johan Wouters; Tom Vercauteren; Werner De Gersem; Eric Achten; Wilfried De Neve; Tom Van Hoof Journal: Radiat Oncol Date: 2016-01-07 Impact factor: 3.481
Authors: William J Beasley; Alan McWilliam; Adam Aitkenhead; Ranald I Mackay; Carl G Rowbottom Journal: J Appl Clin Med Phys Date: 2016-03-08 Impact factor: 2.102