Implementation of deep learning-based auto-segmentation for radiotherapy planning structures: a workflow study at two cancer centers

• Published in: Radiation oncology (London, England) Vol. 16; no. 1; pp. 1 - 101
• Main Authors: Wong, Jordan, Huang, Vicky, Wells, Derek, Giambattista, Joshua, Giambattista, Jonathan, Kolbeck, Carter, Otto, Karl, Saibishkumar, Elantholi P, Alexander, Abraham
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: London BioMed Central Ltd 08.06.2021; BioMed Central; BMC
• Subjects: Cancer; Care and treatment; Central nervous system; Clinical medicine; Computer-assisted; Contouring; Deep learning; Editing; Evaluation; Health planning; Lymph nodes; Machine learning; Methods; Metric space; Organs; Patient outcomes; Patients; Performance evaluation; Planning; Polls & surveys; Prostate; Prostate cancer; Radiation; Radiation therapy; Radiotherapy; Radiotherapy planning; Rectum; Segmentation; Seminal vesicle; Software; Therapists; User experience; User satisfaction; Workflow; Workloads; Canada
• ISSN: 1748-717X; 1748-717X
• DOI: 10.1186/s13014-021-01831-4

Abstract Purpose We recently described the validation of deep learning-based auto-segmented contour (DC) models for organs at risk (OAR) and clinical target volumes (CTV). In this study, we evaluate the performance of implemented DC models in the clinical radiotherapy (RT) planning workflow and report on user experience. Methods and materials DC models were implemented at two cancer centers and used to generate OAR and CTVs for all patients undergoing RT for a central nervous system (CNS), head and neck (H&N), or prostate cancer. Radiation Therapists/Dosimetrists and Radiation Oncologists completed post-contouring surveys rating the degree of edits required for DCs (1 = minimal, 5 = significant) and overall DC satisfaction (1 = poor, 5 = high). Unedited DCs were compared to the edited treatment approved contours using Dice similarity coefficient (DSC) and 95% Hausdorff distance (HD). Results Between September 19, 2019 and March 6, 2020, DCs were generated on approximately 551 eligible cases. 203 surveys were collected on 27 CNS, 54 H&N, and 93 prostate RT plans, resulting in an overall survey compliance rate of 32%. The majority of OAR DCs required minimal edits subjectively (mean editing score ≤ 2) and objectively (mean DSC and 95% HD was ≥ 0.90 and ≤ 2.0 mm). Mean OAR satisfaction score was 4.1 for CNS, 4.4 for H&N, and 4.6 for prostate structures. Overall CTV satisfaction score (n = 25), which encompassed the prostate, seminal vesicles, and neck lymph node volumes, was 4.1. Conclusions Previously validated OAR DC models for CNS, H&N, and prostate RT planning required minimal subjective and objective edits and resulted in a positive user experience, although low survey compliance was a concern. CTV DC model evaluation was even more limited, but high user satisfaction suggests that they may have served as appropriate starting points for patient specific edits.