Charlotte L Brouwer1, Anna M Dinkla2, Liesbeth Vandewinckele3,4, Wouter Crijns3,4, Michaël Claessens5,6, Dirk Verellen5,6, Wouter van Elmpt7. 1. University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Department of Radiation Oncology, Groningen, The Netherlands. 2. Department of Radiation Oncology, Amsterdam University Medical Center, VU University, The Netherlands. 3. Department Oncology, Laboratory of Experimental Radiotherapy, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium. 4. Radiation Oncology, UZ Leuven, Leuven, Belgium. 5. Iridium Network, Wilrijk (Antwerp), Belgium. 6. Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Antwerp, Antwerp, Belgium. 7. Department of Radiation Oncology (MAASTRO), GROW School for Oncology, Maastricht University Medical Centre+, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The use of artificial intelligence (AI)/ machine learning (ML) applications in radiation oncology is emerging, however no clear guidelines on commissioning of ML-based applications exist. The purpose of this study was therefore to investigate the current use and needs to support implementation of ML-based applications in routine clinical practice. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A survey was conducted among medical physicists in radiation oncology, consisting of four parts: clinical applications (1), model training, acceptance and commissioning (2), quality assurance (QA) in clinical practice and General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) (3), and need for education and guidelines (4). Survey answers of medical physicists of the same radiation oncology centre were treated as a separate unique responder in case reporting on different AI applications. RESULTS: In total, 213 medical physicists from 202 radiation oncology centres were included in the analysis. Sixty-nine percent (1 4 7) was using (37%) or preparing (32%) to use ML in clinic, mostly for contouring and treatment planning. In 86%, human observers were still involved in daily clinical use for quality check of the output of the ML algorithm. Knowledge on ethics, legislation and data sharing was limited and scattered among responders. Besides the need for (implementation) guidelines, training of medical physicists and larger databases containing multicentre data was found to be the top priority to accommodate the further introduction of ML in clinical practice. CONCLUSION: The results of this survey indicated the need for education and guidelines on the implementation and quality assurance of ML-based applications to benefit clinical introduction.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The use of artificial intelligence (AI)/ machine learning (ML) applications in radiation oncology is emerging, however no clear guidelines on commissioning of ML-based applications exist. The purpose of this study was therefore to investigate the current use and needs to support implementation of ML-based applications in routine clinical practice. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A survey was conducted among medical physicists in radiation oncology, consisting of four parts: clinical applications (1), model training, acceptance and commissioning (2), quality assurance (QA) in clinical practice and General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) (3), and need for education and guidelines (4). Survey answers of medical physicists of the same radiation oncology centre were treated as a separate unique responder in case reporting on different AI applications. RESULTS: In total, 213 medical physicists from 202 radiation oncology centres were included in the analysis. Sixty-nine percent (1 4 7) was using (37%) or preparing (32%) to use ML in clinic, mostly for contouring and treatment planning. In 86%, human observers were still involved in daily clinical use for quality check of the output of the ML algorithm. Knowledge on ethics, legislation and data sharing was limited and scattered among responders. Besides the need for (implementation) guidelines, training of medical physicists and larger databases containing multicentre data was found to be the top priority to accommodate the further introduction of ML in clinical practice. CONCLUSION: The results of this survey indicated the need for education and guidelines on the implementation and quality assurance of ML-based applications to benefit clinical introduction.
Authors: Cai Grau; Noémie Defourny; Julian Malicki; Peter Dunscombe; Josep M Borras; Mary Coffey; Ben Slotman; Marta Bogusz; Chiara Gasparotto; Yolande Lievens; Arianit Kokobobo; Felix Sedlmayer; Elena Slobina; Karen Feyen; Tatiana Hadjieva; Karel Odrazka; Jesper Grau Eriksen; Jana Jaal; Ritva Bly; Bruno Chauvet; Normann Willich; Csaba Polgar; Jakob Johannsson; Moya Cunningham; Stefano Magrini; Vydmantas Atkocius; Michel Untereiner; Martin Pirotta; Vanja Karadjinovic; Sverre Levernes; Krystol Sladowski; Maria Lurdes Trigo; Barbara Šegedin; Aurora Rodriguez; Magnus Lagerlund; Bert Pastoors; Peter Hoskin; Jaap Vaarkamp; Ramon Cleries Soler Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2014-10-31 Impact factor: 6.280
Authors: M Saiful Huq; Benedick A Fraass; Peter B Dunscombe; John P Gibbons; Geoffrey S Ibbott; Arno J Mundt; Sasa Mutic; Jatinder R Palta; Frank Rath; Bruce R Thomadsen; Jeffrey F Williamson; Ellen D Yorke Journal: Med Phys Date: 2016-07 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Amy T Y Chang; Albert W M Hung; Fion W K Cheung; Michael C H Lee; Oscar S H Chan; Helen Philips; Yung-Tang Cheng; Wai-Tong Ng Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2016-02-12 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Issam El Naqa; Dan Ruan; Gilmer Valdes; Andre Dekker; Todd McNutt; Yaorong Ge; Q Jackie Wu; Jung Hun Oh; Maria Thor; Wade Smith; Arvind Rao; Clifton Fuller; Ying Xiao; Frank Manion; Matthew Schipper; Charles Mayo; Jean M Moran; Randall Ten Haken Journal: Med Phys Date: 2018-08-24 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Maria Thor; Aditi Iyer; Jue Jiang; Aditya Apte; Harini Veeraraghavan; Natasha B Allgood; Jennifer A Kouri; Ying Zhou; Eve LoCastro; Sharif Elguindi; Linda Hong; Margie Hunt; Laura Cerviño; Michalis Aristophanous; Masoud Zarepisheh; Joseph O Deasy Journal: Phys Imaging Radiat Oncol Date: 2021-07-28
Authors: Andrea D'Aviero; Alessia Re; Francesco Catucci; Danila Piccari; Claudio Votta; Domenico Piro; Antonio Piras; Carmela Di Dio; Martina Iezzi; Francesco Preziosi; Sebastiano Menna; Flaviovincenzo Quaranta; Althea Boschetti; Marco Marras; Francesco Miccichè; Roberto Gallus; Luca Indovina; Francesco Bussu; Vincenzo Valentini; Davide Cusumano; Gian Carlo Mattiucci Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-07-25 Impact factor: 4.614
Authors: Roque Rodríguez Outeiral; Paula Bos; Hedda J van der Hulst; Abrahim Al-Mamgani; Bas Jasperse; Rita Simões; Uulke A van der Heide Journal: Phys Imaging Radiat Oncol Date: 2022-08-13
Authors: Jordan Wong; Vicky Huang; Derek Wells; Joshua Giambattista; Jonathan Giambattista; Carter Kolbeck; Karl Otto; Elantholi P Saibishkumar; Abraham Alexander Journal: Radiat Oncol Date: 2021-06-08 Impact factor: 3.481
Authors: Jordan Wong; Vicky Huang; Joshua A Giambattista; Tony Teke; Carter Kolbeck; Jonathan Giambattista; Siavash Atrchian Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2021-06-07 Impact factor: 6.244