Deep learning for automatic head and neck lymph node level delineation provides expert-level accuracy.
artificial intelligence
autosegmentation
deep learning
head and neck
lymph node level
neural network
radiotherapy
target volume
Journal
Frontiers in oncology
ISSN: 2234-943X
Titre abrégé: Front Oncol
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101568867
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2023
2023
Historique:
received:
03
12
2022
accepted:
30
01
2023
entrez:
6
3
2023
pubmed:
7
3
2023
medline:
7
3
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Deep learning-based head and neck lymph node level (HN_LNL) autodelineation is of high relevance to radiotherapy research and clinical treatment planning but still underinvestigated in academic literature. In particular, there is no publicly available open-source solution for large-scale autosegmentation of HN_LNL in the research setting. An expert-delineated cohort of 35 planning CTs was used for training of an nnU-net 3D-fullres/2D-ensemble model for autosegmentation of 20 different HN_LNL. A second cohort acquired at the same institution later in time served as the test set (n = 20). In a completely blinded evaluation, 3 clinical experts rated the quality of deep learning autosegmentations in a head-to-head comparison with expert-created contours. For a subgroup of 10 cases, intraobserver variability was compared to the average deep learning autosegmentation accuracy on the original and recontoured set of expert segmentations. A postprocessing step to adjust craniocaudal boundaries of level autosegmentations to the CT slice plane was introduced and the effect of autocontour consistency with CT slice plane orientation on geometric accuracy and expert rating was investigated. Blinded expert ratings for deep learning segmentations and expert-created contours were not significantly different. Deep learning segmentations with slice plane adjustment were rated numerically higher (mean, 81.0 vs. 79.6, p = 0.185) and deep learning segmentations without slice plane adjustment were rated numerically lower (77.2 vs. 79.6, p = 0.167) than manually drawn contours. In a head-to-head comparison, deep learning segmentations with CT slice plane adjustment were rated significantly better than deep learning contours without slice plane adjustment (81.0 vs. 77.2, p = 0.004). Geometric accuracy of deep learning segmentations was not different from intraobserver variability (mean Dice per level, 0.76 vs. 0.77, p = 0.307). Clinical significance of contour consistency with CT slice plane orientation was not represented by geometric accuracy metrics (volumetric Dice, 0.78 vs. 0.78, p = 0.703). We show that a nnU-net 3D-fullres/2D-ensemble model can be used for highly accurate autodelineation of HN_LNL using only a limited training dataset that is ideally suited for large-scale standardized autodelineation of HN_LNL in the research setting. Geometric accuracy metrics are only an imperfect surrogate for blinded expert rating.
Sections du résumé
Background
UNASSIGNED
Deep learning-based head and neck lymph node level (HN_LNL) autodelineation is of high relevance to radiotherapy research and clinical treatment planning but still underinvestigated in academic literature. In particular, there is no publicly available open-source solution for large-scale autosegmentation of HN_LNL in the research setting.
Methods
UNASSIGNED
An expert-delineated cohort of 35 planning CTs was used for training of an nnU-net 3D-fullres/2D-ensemble model for autosegmentation of 20 different HN_LNL. A second cohort acquired at the same institution later in time served as the test set (n = 20). In a completely blinded evaluation, 3 clinical experts rated the quality of deep learning autosegmentations in a head-to-head comparison with expert-created contours. For a subgroup of 10 cases, intraobserver variability was compared to the average deep learning autosegmentation accuracy on the original and recontoured set of expert segmentations. A postprocessing step to adjust craniocaudal boundaries of level autosegmentations to the CT slice plane was introduced and the effect of autocontour consistency with CT slice plane orientation on geometric accuracy and expert rating was investigated.
Results
UNASSIGNED
Blinded expert ratings for deep learning segmentations and expert-created contours were not significantly different. Deep learning segmentations with slice plane adjustment were rated numerically higher (mean, 81.0 vs. 79.6, p = 0.185) and deep learning segmentations without slice plane adjustment were rated numerically lower (77.2 vs. 79.6, p = 0.167) than manually drawn contours. In a head-to-head comparison, deep learning segmentations with CT slice plane adjustment were rated significantly better than deep learning contours without slice plane adjustment (81.0 vs. 77.2, p = 0.004). Geometric accuracy of deep learning segmentations was not different from intraobserver variability (mean Dice per level, 0.76 vs. 0.77, p = 0.307). Clinical significance of contour consistency with CT slice plane orientation was not represented by geometric accuracy metrics (volumetric Dice, 0.78 vs. 0.78, p = 0.703).
Conclusions
UNASSIGNED
We show that a nnU-net 3D-fullres/2D-ensemble model can be used for highly accurate autodelineation of HN_LNL using only a limited training dataset that is ideally suited for large-scale standardized autodelineation of HN_LNL in the research setting. Geometric accuracy metrics are only an imperfect surrogate for blinded expert rating.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36874135
doi: 10.3389/fonc.2023.1115258
pmc: PMC9978473
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
1115258Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2023 Weissmann, Huang, Fischer, Roesch, Mansoorian, Ayala Gaona, Gostian, Hecht, Lettmaier, Deloch, Frey, Gaipl, Distel, Maier, Iro, Semrau, Bert, Fietkau and Putz.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Références
J Med Internet Res. 2021 Jul 12;23(7):e26151
pubmed: 34255661
Radiother Oncol. 2019 Jan;130:25-31
pubmed: 30005953
Magn Reson Imaging. 2012 Nov;30(9):1323-41
pubmed: 22770690
Radiother Oncol. 2021 Jul;160:185-191
pubmed: 33984348
Radiother Oncol. 2008 May;87(2):281-9
pubmed: 18279984
J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol. 2021 Aug;65(5):578-595
pubmed: 34313006
Radiat Oncol. 2013 Jun 26;8:154
pubmed: 23803232
Med Phys. 2019 Dec;46(12):5612-5622
pubmed: 31587300
Strahlenther Onkol. 2022 Feb;198(2):123-134
pubmed: 34427717
Radiother Oncol. 2014 Jan;110(1):172-81
pubmed: 24183870
Radiother Oncol. 2019 May;134:1-9
pubmed: 31005201
Strahlenther Onkol. 2020 Oct;196(10):847
pubmed: 32940764
Med Phys. 2010 Dec;37(12):6338-46
pubmed: 21302791
Front Neuroinform. 2018 Nov 20;12:82
pubmed: 30515089
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2010 Jul 1;77(3):959-66
pubmed: 20231069
J Med Imaging (Bellingham). 2020 Nov;7(6):064006
pubmed: 33415178
Radiother Oncol. 2022 Jul;172:10-17
pubmed: 35500787
Med Image Anal. 2017 Feb;36:61-78
pubmed: 27865153
Strahlenther Onkol. 2020 Jun;196(6):522-529
pubmed: 32006068
Semin Radiat Oncol. 2002 Jul;12(3):238-49
pubmed: 12118389
Radiother Oncol. 2020 Dec;153:180-188
pubmed: 33065182
Ann Intern Med. 2015 Jan 6;162(1):W1-73
pubmed: 25560730
J Immunother Cancer. 2022 Jan;10(1):
pubmed: 35078923
Nat Methods. 2021 Feb;18(2):203-211
pubmed: 33288961
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2021 Mar 1;109(3):801-812
pubmed: 33068690
Pract Radiat Oncol. 2014 Jan-Feb;4(1):e31-7
pubmed: 24621429
Biomed Eng Online. 2010 Jun 22;9:30
pubmed: 20569461
Pract Radiat Oncol. 2021 May-Jun;11(3):177-184
pubmed: 33640315
Med Image Comput Comput Assist Interv. 2008;11(Pt 2):434-41
pubmed: 18982634
BMJ. 2009 May 28;338:b605
pubmed: 19477892
Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2002 Jul;128(7):751-8
pubmed: 12117328
Circulation. 2022 Nov 15;146(20):1492-1503
pubmed: 36124774
Front Neuroinform. 2013 Dec 30;7:45
pubmed: 24416015