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.

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. - In: PHYSICS AND IMAGING IN RADIATION ONCOLOGY. - ISSN 2405-6316. - 28:(2023). [10.1016/j.phro.2023.100501]

Real-world validation of Artificial Intelligence-based Computed Tomography auto-contouring for prostate cancer radiotherapy planning

Di Muzio, Nadia G.
Penultimo
;
2023-01-01

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.
2023
Artificial Intelligence in radiotherapy
Auto-contouring
Planning
Prostate cancer
Radiotherapy
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
2023 Real worls validation of Artificial Intelligence based Physics and imaging in radiation oncology.pdf

accesso aperto

Tipologia: PDF editoriale (versione pubblicata dall'editore)
Licenza: Creative commons
Dimensione 980.36 kB
Formato Adobe PDF
980.36 kB Adobe PDF Visualizza/Apri

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11768/170896
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus 3
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 3
social impact