RESUMO
Developers and users of artificial-intelligence-based tools for automatic contouring and treatment planning in radiotherapy are expected to assess clinical acceptability of these tools. However, what is 'clinical acceptability'? Quantitative and qualitative approaches have been used to assess this ill-defined concept, all of which have advantages and disadvantages or limitations. The approach chosen may depend on the goal of the study as well as on available resources. In this paper, we discuss various aspects of 'clinical acceptability' and how they can move us toward a standard for defining clinical acceptability of new autocontouring and planning tools.
RESUMO
Despite tremendous advancements in in vivo imaging modalities, there remains substantial uncertainty with respect to tumor delineation on in these images. Histopathology remains the gold standard for determining the extent of malignancy, with in vivo imaging to histopathologic correlation enabling spatial comparisons. In this review, the steps necessary for successful imaging to histopathologic correlation are described, including in vivo imaging, resection, fixation, specimen sectioning (sectioning technique, securing technique, orientation matching, slice matching), microtome sectioning and staining, correlation (including image registration) and performance evaluation. The techniques used for each of these steps are also discussed. Hundreds of publications from the past 20 years were surveyed, and 62 selected for detailed analysis. For these 62 publications, each stage of the correlative pathology process (and the sub-steps of specimen sectioning) are listed. A statistical analysis was conducted based on 19 studies that reported target registration error as their performance metric. While some methods promise greater accuracy, they may be expensive. Due to the complexity of the processes involved, correlative pathology studies generally include a small number of subjects, which hinders advanced developments in this field.