Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Real-world validation of Artificial Intelligence-based Computed Tomography auto-contouring for prostate cancer radiotherapy planning.
Palazzo, Gabriele; Mangili, Paola; Deantoni, Chiara; Fodor, Andrei; Broggi, Sara; Castriconi, Roberta; Ubeira Gabellini, Maria Giulia; Del Vecchio, Antonella; Di Muzio, Nadia G; Fiorino, Claudio.
Afiliación
  • Palazzo G; Medical Physics, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milano, Italy.
  • Mangili P; Medical Physics, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milano, Italy.
  • Deantoni C; Radiotherapy, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milano, Italy.
  • Fodor A; Radiotherapy, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milano, Italy.
  • Broggi S; Medical Physics, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milano, Italy.
  • Castriconi R; Medical Physics, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milano, Italy.
  • Ubeira Gabellini MG; Medical Physics, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milano, Italy.
  • Del Vecchio A; Medical Physics, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milano, Italy.
  • Di Muzio NG; Radiotherapy, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milano, Italy.
  • Fiorino C; Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, Italy.
Phys Imaging Radiat Oncol ; 28: 100501, 2023 Oct.
Article en En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37920450
ABSTRACT
Background and

purpose:

Artificial Intelligence (AI)-based auto-contouring for treatment planning in radiotherapy needs extensive clinical validation, including the impact of editing after automatic segmentation. The aims of this study were to assess the performance of a commercial system for Clinical Target Volumes (CTVs) (prostate/seminal vesicles) and selected Organs at Risk (OARs) (rectum/bladder/femoral heads + femurs), evaluating also inter-observer variability (manual vs automatic + editing) and the reduction of contouring time. Materials and

methods:

Two expert observers contoured CTVs/OARs of 20 patients in our Treatment Planning System (TPS). Computed Tomography (CT) images were sent to the automatic contouring workstation automatic contours were generated and sent back to TPS, where observers could edit them if necessary. Inter- and intra-observer consistency was estimated using Dice Similarity Coefficients (DSC). Radiation oncologists were also asked to score the quality of automatic contours, ranging from 1 (complete re-contouring) to 5 (no editing). Contouring times (manual vs automatic + edit) were compared.

Results:

DSCs (manual vs automatic only) were consistent with inter-observer variability (between 0.65 for seminal vesicles and 0.94 for bladder); editing further improved performances (range 0.76-0.94). The median clinical score was 4 (little editing) and it was <4 in 3/2 patients for the two observers respectively. Inter-observer variability of automatic + editing contours improved significantly, being lower than manual contouring (e.g. seminal vesicles 0.83vs0.73; prostate 0.86vs0.83; rectum 0.96vs0.81). Oncologist contouring time reduced from 17 to 24 min of manual contouring time to 3-7 min of editing time for the two observers (p < 0.01).

Conclusion:

Automatic contouring with a commercial AI-based system followed by editing can replace manual contouring, resulting in significantly reduced time for segmentation and better consistency between operators.
Palabras clave

Texto completo: 1 Banco de datos: MEDLINE Idioma: En Revista: Phys Imaging Radiat Oncol Año: 2023 Tipo del documento: Article País de afiliación: Italia

Texto completo: 1 Banco de datos: MEDLINE Idioma: En Revista: Phys Imaging Radiat Oncol Año: 2023 Tipo del documento: Article País de afiliación: Italia