Caroline Elisabeth Olsson1,2, Rahul Suresh1, Jarkko Niemelä3, Saad Ullah Akram3, Alexander Valdman4. 1. Medical Radiation Sciences, Clinical Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy, Gothenburg University, Gothenburg, Sweden. 2. Regional Cancer Centre West, Western Sweden Healthcare Region, Gothenburg, Sweden. 3. MVision AI Oy, Helsinki, Finland. 4. Department of Radiotherapy, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden.
Abstract
Background and purpose: Autosegmentation techniques are emerging as time-saving means for radiation therapy (RT) contouring, but the understanding of their performance on different datasets is limited. The aim of this study was to determine agreement between rectal volumes by an existing autosegmentation algorithm and manually-delineated rectal volumes in prostate cancer RT. We also investigated contour quality by different-sized training datasets and consistently-curated volumes for retrained versions of this same algorithm. Materials and methods: Single-institutional data from 624 prostate cancer patients treated to 50-70 Gy were used. Manually-delineated clinical rectal volumes (clinical) and consistently-curated volumes recontoured to one anatomical guideline (reference) were compared to autocontoured volumes by a commercial autosegmentation tool based on deep-learning (v1; n = 891, multiple-institutional data) and retrained versions using subsets of the curated volumes (v32/64/128/256; n = 32/64/128/256). Evaluations included dose-volume histogram metrics, Dice similarity coefficients, and Hausdorff distances; differences between groups were quantified using parametric or non-parametric hypothesis testing. Results: Volumes by v1-256 (76-78 cm3) were larger than reference (75 cm3) and clinical (76 cm3). Mean doses by v1-256 (24.2-25.2 Gy) were closer to reference (24.2 Gy) than to clinical (23.8 Gy). Maximum doses were similar for all volumes (65.7-66.0 Gy). Dice for v1-256 and reference (0.87-0.89) were higher than for v1-256 and clinical (0.86-0.87) with corresponding Hausdorff comparisons including reference smaller than comparisons including clinical (5-6 mm vs. 7-8 mm). Conclusion: Using small single-institutional RT datasets with consistently-defined rectal volumes when training autosegmentation algorithms created contours of similar quality as the same algorithm trained on large multi-institutional datasets.
Background and purpose: Autosegmentation techniques are emerging as time-saving means for radiation therapy (RT) contouring, but the understanding of their performance on different datasets is limited. The aim of this study was to determine agreement between rectal volumes by an existing autosegmentation algorithm and manually-delineated rectal volumes in prostate cancer RT. We also investigated contour quality by different-sized training datasets and consistently-curated volumes for retrained versions of this same algorithm. Materials and methods: Single-institutional data from 624 prostate cancer patients treated to 50-70 Gy were used. Manually-delineated clinical rectal volumes (clinical) and consistently-curated volumes recontoured to one anatomical guideline (reference) were compared to autocontoured volumes by a commercial autosegmentation tool based on deep-learning (v1; n = 891, multiple-institutional data) and retrained versions using subsets of the curated volumes (v32/64/128/256; n = 32/64/128/256). Evaluations included dose-volume histogram metrics, Dice similarity coefficients, and Hausdorff distances; differences between groups were quantified using parametric or non-parametric hypothesis testing. Results: Volumes by v1-256 (76-78 cm3) were larger than reference (75 cm3) and clinical (76 cm3). Mean doses by v1-256 (24.2-25.2 Gy) were closer to reference (24.2 Gy) than to clinical (23.8 Gy). Maximum doses were similar for all volumes (65.7-66.0 Gy). Dice for v1-256 and reference (0.87-0.89) were higher than for v1-256 and clinical (0.86-0.87) with corresponding Hausdorff comparisons including reference smaller than comparisons including clinical (5-6 mm vs. 7-8 mm). Conclusion: Using small single-institutional RT datasets with consistently-defined rectal volumes when training autosegmentation algorithms created contours of similar quality as the same algorithm trained on large multi-institutional datasets.
Authors: Kirrily Cloak; Michael G Jameson; Andrea Paneghel; Kirsty Wiltshire; Andrew Kneebone; Maria Pearse; Mark Sidhom; Colin Tang; Carol Fraser-Browne; Lois C Holloway; Annette Haworth Journal: J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol Date: 2019-04-05 Impact factor: 1.735
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: Jordan Wong; Allan Fong; Nevin McVicar; Sally Smith; Joshua Giambattista; Derek Wells; Carter Kolbeck; Jonathan Giambattista; Lovedeep Gondara; Abraham Alexander Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2019-12-05 Impact factor: 6.280
Authors: Carl Salembier; Geert Villeirs; Berardino De Bari; Peter Hoskin; Bradley R Pieters; Marco Van Vulpen; Vincent Khoo; Ann Henry; Alberto Bossi; Gert De Meerleer; Valérie Fonteyne Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2018-04 Impact factor: 6.280
Authors: Hiram A Gay; H Joseph Barthold; Elizabeth O'Meara; Walter R Bosch; Issam El Naqa; Rawan Al-Lozi; Seth A Rosenthal; Colleen Lawton; W Robert Lee; Howard Sandler; Anthony Zietman; Robert Myerson; Laura A Dawson; Christopher Willett; Lisa A Kachnic; Anuja Jhingran; Lorraine Portelance; Janice Ryu; William Small; David Gaffney; Akila N Viswanathan; Jeff M Michalski Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2012-04-06 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Rachel Kearvell; Annette Haworth; Martin A Ebert; Judy Murray; Ben Hooton; Sharon Richardson; David J Joseph; David Lamb; Nigel A Spry; Gillian Duchesne; James W Denham Journal: J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol Date: 2013-01-07 Impact factor: 1.735
Authors: Jeremiah Hwee; Alexander V Louie; Stewart Gaede; Glenn Bauman; David D'Souza; Tracy Sexton; Michael Lock; Belal Ahmad; George Rodrigues Journal: Radiat Oncol Date: 2011-09-09 Impact factor: 3.481
Authors: Femke Vaassen; Colien Hazelaar; Ana Vaniqui; Mark Gooding; Brent van der Heyden; Richard Canters; Wouter van Elmpt Journal: Phys Imaging Radiat Oncol Date: 2019-12-17
Authors: Stanislav Nikolov; Sam Blackwell; Alexei Zverovitch; Cían Owen Hughes; Joseph R Ledsam; Olaf Ronneberger; Ruheena Mendes; Michelle Livne; Jeffrey De Fauw; Yojan Patel; Clemens Meyer; Harry Askham; Bernadino Romera-Paredes; Christopher Kelly; Alan Karthikesalingam; Carlton Chu; Dawn Carnell; Cheng Boon; Derek D'Souza; Syed Ali Moinuddin; Bethany Garie; Yasmin McQuinlan; Sarah Ireland; Kiarna Hampton; Krystle Fuller; Hugh Montgomery; Geraint Rees; Mustafa Suleyman; Trevor Back Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2021-07-12 Impact factor: 5.428