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
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
100533Informations 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.