.png){kind=icon}
返回
Contour subregion error detection methodology using deep learning auto-segmentation
.png){kind=icon}
PRE
AI
DOI：10.1002/mp.16768.png)
.png){kind=icon}
原文求助.png){kind=icon}
分享.png){kind=icon}
收藏
摘要
En 中文
BackgroundInaccurate manual organ delineation is one of the high-risk failure modes in radiation treatment. Numerous automated contour quality assurance (QA) systems have been developed to assess contour acceptability; however, manual inspection of flagged cases is a time-consuming and challenging process, and can lead to users overlooking the exact error location.PurposeOur aim is to develop and validate a contour QA system that can effectively detect and visualize subregional contour errors, both qualitatively and quantitatively.Methods/MaterialsA novel contour subregion error detection (CSED) system was developed using subregional surface distance discrepancies between manual and deep learning auto-segmentation (DLAS) contours. A validation study was conducted using a head and neck public dataset containing 339 cases and evaluated according to knowledge-based pass criteria derived from a clinical training dataset of 60 cases. A blind qualitative evaluation was conducted, comparing the results from the CSED system with manual labels. Subsequently, the CSED-flagged cases were re-examined by a radiation oncologist.ResultsThe CSED system could visualize the diverse types of subregional contour errors qualitatively and quantitatively. In the validation dataset, the CSED system resulted in true positive rates (TPR) of 0.814, 0.800, and 0.771; false positive rates (FPR) of 0.310, 0.267, and 0.298; and accuracies of 0.735, 0.759, and 0.730, for brainstem and left and right parotid contours, respectively. The CSED-assisted manual review caught 13 brainstem, 19 left parotid, and 21 right parotid contour errors missed by conventional human review. The TPR/FPR/accuracy of the CSED-assisted manual review improved to 0.836/0.253/0.784, 0.831/0.171/0.830, and 0.808/0.193/0.807 for each structure, respectively. Further, the time savings achieved through CSED-assisted review improved by 75%, with the time for review taking 24.81 +/- 12.84, 26.75 +/- 10.41, and 28.71 +/- 13.72 s for each structure, respectively.ConclusionsThe CSED system enables qualitative and quantitative detection, localization, and visualization of manual segmentation subregional errors utilizing DLAS contours as references. The use of this system has been shown to help reduce the risk of high-risk failure modes resulting from inaccurate organ segmentation.
Keyword:
deep learning auto segmentation
OAR delineation
quality assurance
期刊
IF:
3.2
论文数:
3.7W
被引数:
3.2W
机构
引用论文
Auto-segmentation of organs at risk for head and neck radiotherapy planning: From atlas-based to deep learning methods头颈部放射治疗计划风险器官的自动分割: 从基于atlas的方法到深度学习方法.png)
MEDICAL PHYSICS
MEDICAL PHYSICSIF3.2
PREAI
分享收藏Evaluation of segmentation methods on head and neck CT: Auto-segmentation challenge 2015头颈部CT分割方法的评价: 自动分割挑战2015MEDICAL PHYSICS
OAAI
MEDICAL PHYSICSIF3.2
OAAI分享收藏Contouring quality assurance methodology based on multiple geometric features against deep learning auto-segmentationMEDICAL PHYSICSOAAI
MEDICAL PHYSICSIF3.2
OAAI分享收藏分享收藏A Narrative Review of the Potential Roles of Lipid-Based Vesicles (Vesiculosomes) in Burn Management
OAAI
OAAI分享收藏Strategies for effective physics plan and chart review in radiation therapy: Report of AAPM Task Group 275MEDICAL PHYSICSOAAI
MEDICAL PHYSICSIF3.2
OAAI分享收藏Interobserver variability in organ at risk delineation in head and neck cancer头颈癌中处于危险中的器官描绘的观察者间变异性RADIATION ONCOLOGYOAAI
RADIATION ONCOLOGYIF3.2
OAAI分享收藏Incremental retraining, clinical implementation, and acceptance rate of deep learning auto-segmentation for male pelvis in a multiuser environmentMEDICAL PHYSICS
MEDICAL PHYSICSIF3.2
PREAI
分享收藏
查看更多内容