Aaron Babier1, Binghao Zhang1, Rafid Mahmood1, Kevin L Moore2, Thomas G Purdie3,4, Andrea L McNiven3,4, Timothy C Y Chan1,5. 1. Department of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering, University of Toronto, 5 King's College Road, Toronto, ON, M5S 3G8, Canada. 2. Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California, San Diego, 3855 Health Sciences Drive, La Jolla, CA, 92104, USA. 3. Radiation Medicine Program, UHN Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, 610 University of Avenue, Toronto, ON, M5T 2M9, Canada. 4. Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Toronto, 148 - 150 College Street, Toronto, ON, M5S 3S2, Canada. 5. Techna Institute for the Advancement of Technology for Health, 124 - 100 College Street Toronto, ON, M5G 1P5, Canada.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To advance fair and consistent comparisons of dose prediction methods for knowledge-based planning (KBP) in radiation therapy research. METHODS: We hosted OpenKBP, a 2020 AAPM Grand Challenge, and challenged participants to develop the best method for predicting the dose of contoured computed tomography (CT) images. The models were evaluated according to two separate scores: (a) dose score, which evaluates the full three-dimensional (3D) dose distributions, and (b) dose-volume histogram (DVH) score, which evaluates a set DVH metrics. We used these scores to quantify the quality of the models based on their out-of-sample predictions. To develop and test their models, participants were given the data of 340 patients who were treated for head-and-neck cancer with radiation therapy. The data were partitioned into training ( n = 200 ), validation ( n = 40 ), and testing ( n = 100 ) datasets. All participants performed training and validation with the corresponding datasets during the first (validation) phase of the Challenge. In the second (testing) phase, the participants used their model on the testing data to quantify the out-of-sample performance, which was hidden from participants and used to determine the final competition ranking. Participants also responded to a survey to summarize their models. RESULTS: The Challenge attracted 195 participants from 28 countries, and 73 of those participants formed 44 teams in the validation phase, which received a total of 1750 submissions. The testing phase garnered submissions from 28 of those teams, which represents 28 unique prediction methods. On average, over the course of the validation phase, participants improved the dose and DVH scores of their models by a factor of 2.7 and 5.7, respectively. In the testing phase one model achieved the best dose score (2.429) and DVH score (1.478), which were both significantly better than the dose score (2.564) and the DVH score (1.529) that was achieved by the runner-up models. Lastly, many of the top performing teams reported that they used generalizable techniques (e.g., ensembles) to achieve higher performance than their competition. CONCLUSION: OpenKBP is the first competition for knowledge-based planning research. The Challenge helped launch the first platform that enables researchers to compare KBP prediction methods fairly and consistently using a large open-source dataset and standardized metrics. OpenKBP has also democratized KBP research by making it accessible to everyone, which should help accelerate the progress of KBP research. The OpenKBP datasets are available publicly to help benchmark future KBP research.
PURPOSE: To advance fair and consistent comparisons of dose prediction methods for knowledge-based planning (KBP) in radiation therapy research. METHODS: We hosted OpenKBP, a 2020 AAPM Grand Challenge, and challenged participants to develop the best method for predicting the dose of contoured computed tomography (CT) images. The models were evaluated according to two separate scores: (a) dose score, which evaluates the full three-dimensional (3D) dose distributions, and (b) dose-volume histogram (DVH) score, which evaluates a set DVH metrics. We used these scores to quantify the quality of the models based on their out-of-sample predictions. To develop and test their models, participants were given the data of 340 patients who were treated for head-and-neck cancer with radiation therapy. The data were partitioned into training ( n = 200 ), validation ( n = 40 ), and testing ( n = 100 ) datasets. All participants performed training and validation with the corresponding datasets during the first (validation) phase of the Challenge. In the second (testing) phase, the participants used their model on the testing data to quantify the out-of-sample performance, which was hidden from participants and used to determine the final competition ranking. Participants also responded to a survey to summarize their models. RESULTS: The Challenge attracted 195 participants from 28 countries, and 73 of those participants formed 44 teams in the validation phase, which received a total of 1750 submissions. The testing phase garnered submissions from 28 of those teams, which represents 28 unique prediction methods. On average, over the course of the validation phase, participants improved the dose and DVH scores of their models by a factor of 2.7 and 5.7, respectively. In the testing phase one model achieved the best dose score (2.429) and DVH score (1.478), which were both significantly better than the dose score (2.564) and the DVH score (1.529) that was achieved by the runner-up models. Lastly, many of the top performing teams reported that they used generalizable techniques (e.g., ensembles) to achieve higher performance than their competition. CONCLUSION: OpenKBP is the first competition for knowledge-based planning research. The Challenge helped launch the first platform that enables researchers to compare KBP prediction methods fairly and consistently using a large open-source dataset and standardized metrics. OpenKBP has also democratized KBP research by making it accessible to everyone, which should help accelerate the progress of KBP research. The OpenKBP datasets are available publicly to help benchmark future KBP research.
Authors: Samuel Cros; Hugo Bouttier; Phuc Felix Nguyen-Tan; Eugene Vorontsov; Samuel Kadoury Journal: J Appl Clin Med Phys Date: 2022-06-03 Impact factor: 2.243