Associations Between Radiation Oncologist Demographic Factors and Segmentation Similarity Benchmarks: Insights From a Crowd-Sourced Challenge Using Bayesian Estimation.

PURPOSE: The quality of radiotherapy auto-segmentation training data, primarily derived from clinician observers, is of utmost importance. However, the factors influencing the quality of clinician-derived segmentations are poorly understood; our study aims to quantify these factors. METHODS: Organ at risk (OAR) and tumor-related segmentations provided by radiation oncologists from the Contouring Collaborative for Consensus in Radiation Oncology data set were used. Segmentations were derived from five disease sites: breast, sarcoma, head and neck (H&N), gynecologic (GYN), and GI. Segmentation quality was determined on a structure-by-structure basis by comparing the observer segmentations with an expert-derived consensus, which served as a reference standard benchmark. The Dice similarity coefficient (DSC) was primarily used as a metric for the comparisons. DSC was stratified into binary groups on the basis of structure-specific expert-derived interobserver variability (IOV) cutoffs. Generalized linear mixed-effects models using Bayesian estimation were used to investigate the association between demographic variables and the binarized DSC for each disease site. Variables with a highest density interval excluding zero were considered to substantially affect the outcome measure. RESULTS: Five hundred seventy-four, 110, 452, 112, and 48 segmentations were used for the breast, sarcoma, H&N, GYN, and GI cases, respectively. The median percentage of segmentations that crossed the expert DSC IOV cutoff when stratified by structure type was 55% and 31% for OARs and tumors, respectively. Regression analysis revealed that the structure being tumor-related had a substantial negative impact on binarized DSC for the breast, sarcoma, H&N, and GI cases. There were no recurring relationships between segmentation quality and demographic variables across the cases, with most variables demonstrating large standard deviations. CONCLUSION: Our study highlights substantial uncertainty surrounding conventionally presumed factors influencing segmentation quality relative to benchmarks.

E pluribus unum: prospective acceptability benchmarking from the Contouring Collaborative for Consensus in Radiation Oncology crowdsourced initiative for multiobserver segmentation.

Purpose: Contouring Collaborative for Consensus in Radiation Oncology (C3RO) is a crowdsourced challenge engaging radiation oncologists across various expertise levels in segmentation. An obstacle to artificial intelligence (AI) development is the paucity of multiexpert datasets; consequently, we sought to characterize whether aggregate segmentations generated from multiple nonexperts could meet or exceed recognized expert agreement. Approach: Participants who contoured ≥ 1 region of interest (ROI) for the breast, sarcoma, head and neck (H&N), gynecologic (GYN), or gastrointestinal (GI) cases were identified as a nonexpert or recognized expert. Cohort-specific ROIs were combined into single simultaneous truth and performance level estimation (STAPLE) consensus segmentations. STAPLE nonexpert ROIs were evaluated against STAPLE expert contours using Dice similarity coefficient (DSC). The expert interobserver DSC ( IODSC expert ) was calculated as an acceptability threshold between STAPLE nonexpert and STAPLE expert . To determine the number of nonexperts required to match the IODSC expert for each ROI, a single consensus contour was generated using variable numbers of nonexperts and then compared to the IODSC expert . Results: For all cases, the DSC values for STAPLE nonexpert versus STAPLE expert were higher than comparator expert IODSC expert for most ROIs. The minimum number of nonexpert segmentations needed for a consensus ROI to achieve IODSC expert acceptability criteria ranged between 2 and 4 for breast, 3 and 5 for sarcoma, 3 and 5 for H&N, 3 and 5 for GYN, and 3 for GI. Conclusions: Multiple nonexpert-generated consensus ROIs met or exceeded expert-derived acceptability thresholds. Five nonexperts could potentially generate consensus segmentations for most ROIs with performance approximating experts, suggesting nonexpert segmentations as feasible cost-effective AI inputs.

Dynamic Mutational Landscape of Cerebrospinal Fluid Circulating Tumor DNA and Predictors of Survival after Proton Craniospinal Irradiation for Leptomeningeal Metastases.

PURPOSE: Proton craniospinal irradiation (pCSI) is a promising treatment for patients with solid tumor leptomeningeal metastasis (LM). We hypothesize that genetic characteristics before and changes resulting after pCSI will reflect clinical response to pCSI. We analyzed the cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) from patients receiving pCSI for LM and explored genetic variations associated with response. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: We subjected CSF from 14 patients with LM before and after pCSI to cell-free DNA sequencing using a targeted-sequencing panel. In parallel, plasma ctDNA and primary tumors were subjected to targeted sequencing. Variant allele frequency (VAF) and cancer cell fraction (CCF) were calculated; clonality of observed mutations was determined. Kaplan-Meier analysis was used to associate genomic changes with survival. RESULTS: The median overall survival (OS) for the cohort was 9 months [interquartile range (IQR), 5-21 months]. We showed clonal evolution between tumor and ctDNA of the CSF and plasma with unique mutations identified by compartment. Higher CSF ctDNA mean VAF before pCSI (VAFpre) had worse OS (6 months for VAFpre ≥ 0.32 vs. 9 months for VAFpre < 0.32; P = 0.05). Similarly, increased VAF after pCSI portended worse survival (6 vs. 18 months; P = 0.008). Higher mean CCF of subclonal mutations appearing after pCSI was associated with worse OS (8 vs. 17 months; P = 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with solid tumor LM undergoing pCSI, we found unique genomic profiles associated with pCSI through CSF ctDNA analyses. Patients with reduced genomic diversity within the leptomeningeal compartment demonstrated improved OS after pCSI suggesting that CSF ctDNA analysis may have use in predicting pCSI response.

Large scale crowdsourced radiotherapy segmentations across a variety of cancer anatomic sites.

Clinician generated segmentation of tumor and healthy tissue regions of interest (ROIs) on medical images is crucial for radiotherapy. However, interobserver segmentation variability has long been considered a significant detriment to the implementation of high-quality and consistent radiotherapy dose delivery. This has prompted the increasing development of automated segmentation approaches. However, extant segmentation datasets typically only provide segmentations generated by a limited number of annotators with varying, and often unspecified, levels of expertise. In this data descriptor, numerous clinician annotators manually generated segmentations for ROIs on computed tomography images across a variety of cancer sites (breast, sarcoma, head and neck, gynecologic, gastrointestinal; one patient per cancer site) for the Contouring Collaborative for Consensus in Radiation Oncology challenge. In total, over 200 annotators (experts and non-experts) contributed using a standardized annotation platform (ProKnow). Subsequently, we converted Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine data into Neuroimaging Informatics Technology Initiative format with standardized nomenclature for ease of use. In addition, we generated consensus segmentations for experts and non-experts using the Simultaneous Truth and Performance Level Estimation method. These standardized, structured, and easily accessible data are a valuable resource for systematically studying variability in segmentation applications.

Determining The Role Of Radiation Oncologist Demographic Factors On Segmentation Quality: Insights From A Crowd-Sourced Challenge Using Bayesian Estimation.

BACKGROUND: Medical image auto-segmentation is poised to revolutionize radiotherapy workflows. The quality of auto-segmentation training data, primarily derived from clinician observers, is of utmost importance. However, the factors influencing the quality of these clinician-derived segmentations have yet to be fully understood or quantified. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to determine the role of common observer demographic variables on quantitative segmentation performance. METHODS: Organ at risk (OAR) and tumor volume segmentations provided by radiation oncologist observers from the Contouring Collaborative for Consensus in Radiation Oncology public dataset were utilized for this study. Segmentations were derived from five separate disease sites comprised of one patient case each: breast, sarcoma, head and neck (H&N), gynecologic (GYN), and gastrointestinal (GI). Segmentation quality was determined on a structure-by-structure basis by comparing the observer segmentations with an expert-derived consensus gold standard primarily using the Dice Similarity Coefficient (DSC); surface DSC was investigated as a secondary metric. Metrics were stratified into binary groups based on previously established structure-specific expert-derived interobserver variability (IOV) cutoffs. Generalized linear mixed-effects models using Markov chain Monte Carlo Bayesian estimation were used to investigate the association between demographic variables and the binarized segmentation quality for each disease site separately. Variables with a highest density interval excluding zero - loosely analogous to frequentist significance - were considered to substantially impact the outcome measure. RESULTS: After filtering by practicing radiation oncologists, 574, 110, 452, 112, and 48 structure observations remained for the breast, sarcoma, H&N, GYN, and GI cases, respectively. The median percentage of observations that crossed the expert DSC IOV cutoff when stratified by structure type was 55% and 31% for OARs and tumor volumes, respectively. Bayesian regression analysis revealed tumor category had a substantial negative impact on binarized DSC for the breast (coefficient mean ± standard deviation: -0.97 ± 0.20), sarcoma (-1.04 ± 0.54), H&N (-1.00 ± 0.24), and GI (-2.95 ± 0.98) cases. There were no clear recurring relationships between segmentation quality and demographic variables across the cases, with most variables demonstrating large standard deviations and wide highest density intervals. CONCLUSION: Our study highlights substantial uncertainty surrounding conventionally presumed factors influencing segmentation quality. Future studies should investigate additional demographic variables, more patients and imaging modalities, and alternative metrics of segmentation acceptability.