Automatic contouring QA method using a deep learning-based autocontouring system.
auto-contour
deep learning
similarity metrics
Journal
Journal of applied clinical medical physics
ISSN: 1526-9914
Titre abrégé: J Appl Clin Med Phys
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101089176
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Aug 2022
Aug 2022
Historique:
revised:
27
02
2022
received:
12
01
2022
accepted:
28
04
2022
pubmed:
18
5
2022
medline:
11
8
2022
entrez:
17
5
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
To determine the most accurate similarity metric when using an independent system to verify automatically generated contours. A reference autocontouring system (primary system to create clinical contours) and a verification autocontouring system (secondary system to test the primary contours) were used to generate a pair of 6 female pelvic structures (UteroCervix [uterus + cervix], CTVn [nodal clinical target volume (CTV)], PAN [para-aortic lymph nodes], bladder, rectum, and kidneys) on 49 CT scans from our institution and 38 from other institutions. Additionally, clinically acceptable and unacceptable contours were manually generated using the 49 internal CT scans. Eleven similarity metrics (volumetric Dice similarity coefficient (DSC), Hausdorff distance, 95% Hausdorff distance, mean surface distance, and surface DSC with tolerances from 1 to 10 mm) were calculated between the reference and the verification autocontours, and between the manually generated and the verification autocontours. A support vector machine (SVM) was used to determine the threshold that separates clinically acceptable and unacceptable contours for each structure. The 11 metrics were investigated individually and in certain combinations. Linear, radial basis function, sigmoid, and polynomial kernels were tested using the combinations of metrics as inputs for the SVM. The highest contouring error detection accuracies were 0.91 for the UteroCervix, 0.90 for the CTVn, 0.89 for the PAN, 0.92 for the bladder, 0.95 for the rectum, and 0.97 for the kidneys and were achieved using surface DSCs with a thickness of 1, 2, or 3 mm. The linear kernel was the most accurate and consistent when a combination of metrics was used as an input for the SVM. However, the best model accuracy from the combinations of metrics was not better than the best model accuracy from a surface DSC as an input. We distinguished clinically acceptable contours from clinically unacceptable contours with an accuracy higher than 0.9 for the targets and critical structures in patients with cervical cancer; the most accurate similarity metric was surface DSC with a thickness of 1, 2, or 3 mm.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35580067
doi: 10.1002/acm2.13647
pmc: PMC9359039
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e13647Informations de copyright
© 2022 The Authors. Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics published by Wiley Periodicals, LLC on behalf of The American Association of Physicists in Medicine.
Références
J Med Internet Res. 2021 Jul 12;23(7):e26151
pubmed: 34255661
Comput Med Imaging Graph. 2021 Jun;90:101907
pubmed: 33845433
IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 2009 Aug;28(8):1251-65
pubmed: 19211338
Med Phys. 2015 Feb;42(2):1048-59
pubmed: 25652517
Med Phys. 2020 Jun;47(6):e236-e272
pubmed: 31967655
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2021 Mar 15;109(4):1096-1110
pubmed: 33181248
Med Phys. 2019 Nov;46(11):5086-5097
pubmed: 31505046
Front Oncol. 2020 Sep 23;10:1762
pubmed: 33102206
IEEE Trans Pattern Anal Mach Intell. 2017 Apr;39(4):640-651
pubmed: 27244717
J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2022 Aug;23(8):e13647
pubmed: 35580067
Semin Radiat Oncol. 2019 Jul;29(3):185-197
pubmed: 31027636
IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 2013 Jun;32(6):1043-57
pubmed: 23475352
Med Phys. 2020 Nov;47(11):5648-5658
pubmed: 32964477