.png){kind=icon}
Return
Contour subregion error detection methodology using deep learning auto-segmentation
.png){kind=icon}
PRE
AI
DOI：10.1002/mp.16768.png)
.png){kind=icon}
Original request for help.png){kind=icon}
Share.png){kind=icon}
Save
Abstract
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.
Keywords:
deep learning auto segmentation
OAR delineation
quality assurance
Journal
IF:
3.2
Papers:
3.7W
Citations:
3.2W
Organization
Cited Papers
ShareSaveAuto-segmentation of organs at risk for head and neck radiotherapy planning: From atlas-based to deep learning methods.png)
MEDICAL PHYSICS
MEDICAL PHYSICSIF3.2
PREAI
ShareSaveEvaluation of segmentation methods on head and neck CT: Auto-segmentation challenge 2015MEDICAL PHYSICS
OAAI
MEDICAL PHYSICSIF3.2
OAAIShareSaveContouring quality assurance methodology based on multiple geometric features against deep learning auto-segmentationMEDICAL PHYSICSOAAI
MEDICAL PHYSICSIF3.2
OAAIShareSaveShareSaveA Narrative Review of the Potential Roles of Lipid-Based Vesicles (Vesiculosomes) in Burn Management
OAAI
OAAIShareSaveStrategies for effective physics plan and chart review in radiation therapy: Report of AAPM Task Group 275MEDICAL PHYSICSOAAI
MEDICAL PHYSICSIF3.2
OAAIShareSaveInterobserver variability in organ at risk delineation in head and neck cancerRADIATION ONCOLOGYOAAI
RADIATION ONCOLOGYIF3.2
OAAIShareSaveIncremental retraining, clinical implementation, and acceptance rate of deep learning auto-segmentation for male pelvis in a multiuser environmentMEDICAL PHYSICS
MEDICAL PHYSICSIF3.2
PREAI
ShareSave
View more