Estimating how contouring differences affect normal tissue complication probability modelling.

Automatic contouring Heart Monte Carlo NSCLC NTCP Radiotoxicity

Journal

Physics and imaging in radiation oncology
ISSN: 2405-6316
Titre abrégé: Phys Imaging Radiat Oncol
Pays: Netherlands
ID NLM: 101704276

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
Jan 2024
Historique:
received: 11 09 2023
revised: 15 11 2023
accepted: 30 12 2023
medline: 31 1 2024
pubmed: 31 1 2024
entrez: 31 1 2024
Statut: epublish

Résumé

Normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) models are developed from large retrospective datasets where automatic contouring is often used to contour the organs at risk. This study proposes a methodology to estimate how discrepancies between two sets of contours are reflected on NTCP model performance. We apply this methodology to heart contours within a dataset of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients. One of the contour sets is designated the ground truth and a dosimetric parameter derived from it is used to simulate outcomes via a predefined NTCP relationship. For each simulated outcome, the selected dosimetric parameters associated with each contour set are individually used to fit a toxicity model and their performance is compared. Our dataset comprised 605 stage IIA-IIIB NSCLC patients. Manual, deep learning, and atlas-based heart contours were available. How contour differences were reflected in NTCP model performance depended on the slope of the predefined model, the dosimetric parameter utilized, and the size of the cohort. The impact of contour differences on NTCP model performance increased with steeper NTCP curves. In our dataset, parameters on the low range of the dose-volume histogram were more robust to contour differences. Our methodology can be used to estimate whether a given contouring model is fit for NTCP model development. For the heart in comparable datasets, average Dice should be at least as high as between our manual and deep learning contours for shallow NTCP relationships (88.5 ± 4.5 %) and higher for steep relationships.

Sections du résumé

Background and purpose UNASSIGNED
Normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) models are developed from large retrospective datasets where automatic contouring is often used to contour the organs at risk. This study proposes a methodology to estimate how discrepancies between two sets of contours are reflected on NTCP model performance. We apply this methodology to heart contours within a dataset of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients.
Materials and methods UNASSIGNED
One of the contour sets is designated the ground truth and a dosimetric parameter derived from it is used to simulate outcomes via a predefined NTCP relationship. For each simulated outcome, the selected dosimetric parameters associated with each contour set are individually used to fit a toxicity model and their performance is compared. Our dataset comprised 605 stage IIA-IIIB NSCLC patients. Manual, deep learning, and atlas-based heart contours were available.
Results UNASSIGNED
How contour differences were reflected in NTCP model performance depended on the slope of the predefined model, the dosimetric parameter utilized, and the size of the cohort. The impact of contour differences on NTCP model performance increased with steeper NTCP curves. In our dataset, parameters on the low range of the dose-volume histogram were more robust to contour differences.
Conclusions UNASSIGNED
Our methodology can be used to estimate whether a given contouring model is fit for NTCP model development. For the heart in comparable datasets, average Dice should be at least as high as between our manual and deep learning contours for shallow NTCP relationships (88.5 ± 4.5 %) and higher for steep relationships.

Identifiants

pubmed: 38292649
doi: 10.1016/j.phro.2024.100533
pii: S2405-6316(24)00003-4
pmc: PMC10825684
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Pagination

100533

Informations de copyright

© 2024 The Author(s).

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

Auteurs

Miguel Garrett Fernandes (MG)

Department of Radiation Oncology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.

Johan Bussink (J)

Department of Radiation Oncology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.

Robin Wijsman (R)

Department of Radiation Oncology, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.

Barbara Stam (B)

Department of Radiation Oncology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

René Monshouwer (R)

Department of Radiation Oncology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.

Classifications MeSH