RESUMO
Background and purpose: Tools for auto-segmentation in radiotherapy are widely available, but guidelines for clinical implementation are missing. The goal was to develop a workflow for performance evaluation of three commercial auto-segmentation tools to select one candidate for clinical implementation. Materials and Methods: One hundred patients with six treatment sites (brain, head-and-neck, thorax, abdomen, and pelvis) were included. Three sets of AI-based contours for organs-at-risk (OAR) generated by three software tools and manually drawn expert contours were blindly rated for contouring accuracy. The dice similarity coefficient (DSC), the Hausdorff distance, and a dose/volume evaluation based on the recalculation of the original treatment plan were assessed. Statistically significant differences were tested using the Kruskal-Wallis test and the post-hoc Dunn Test with Bonferroni correction. Results: The mean DSC scores compared to expert contours for all OARs combined were 0.80 ± 0.10, 0.75 ± 0.10, and 0.74 ± 0.11 for the three software tools. Physicians' rating identified equivalent or superior performance of some AI-based contours in head (eye, lens, optic nerve, brain, chiasm), thorax (e.g., heart and lungs), and pelvis and abdomen (e.g., kidney, femoral head) compared to manual contours. For some OARs, the AI models provided results requiring only minor corrections. Bowel-bag and stomach were not fit for direct use. During the interdisciplinary discussion, the physicians' rating was considered the most relevant. Conclusion: A comprehensive method for evaluation and clinical implementation of commercially available auto-segmentation software was developed. The in-depth analysis yielded clear instructions for clinical use within the radiotherapy department.
RESUMO
IMPORTANCE: The recent advances in the field of machine learning have raised expectations that computer-aided diagnosis will become the standard for the diagnosis of melanoma. OBJECTIVE: To critically review the current literature and compare the diagnostic accuracy of computer-aided diagnosis with that of human experts. DATA SOURCES: The MEDLINE, arXiv, and PubMed Central databases were searched to identify eligible studies published between January 1, 2002, and December 31, 2018. STUDY SELECTION: Studies that reported on the accuracy of automated systems for melanoma were selected. Search terms included melanoma, diagnosis, detection, computer aided, and artificial intelligence. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Evaluation of the risk of bias was performed using the QUADAS-2 tool, and quality assessment was based on predefined criteria. Data were analyzed from February 1 to March 10, 2019. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Summary estimates of sensitivity and specificity and summary receiver operating characteristic curves were the primary outcomes. RESULTS: The literature search yielded 1694 potentially eligible studies, of which 132 were included and 70 offered sufficient information for a quantitative analysis. Most studies came from the field of computer science. Prospective clinical studies were rare. Combining the results for automated systems gave a melanoma sensitivity of 0.74 (95% CI, 0.66-0.80) and a specificity of 0.84 (95% CI, 0.79-0.88). Sensitivity was lower in studies that used independent test sets than in those that did not (0.51; 95% CI, 0.34-0.69 vs 0.82; 95% CI, 0.77-0.86; P < .001); however, the specificity was similar (0.83; 95% CI, 0.71-0.91 vs 0.85; 95% CI, 0.80-0.88; P = .67). In comparison with dermatologists' diagnosis, computer-aided diagnosis showed similar sensitivities and a 10 percentage points lower specificity, but the difference was not statistically significant. Studies were heterogeneous and substantial risk of bias was found in all but 4 of the 70 studies included in the quantitative analysis. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Although the accuracy of computer-aided diagnosis for melanoma detection is comparable to that of experts, the real-world applicability of these systems is unknown and potentially limited owing to overfitting and the risk of bias of the studies at hand.