These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Geometric evaluations of CT and MRI based deep learning segmentation for brain OARs in radiotherapy.
    Author: Alzahrani N, Henry A, Clark A, Murray L, Nix M, Al-Qaisieh B.
    Journal: Phys Med Biol; 2023 Aug 29; 68(17):. PubMed ID: 37579753.
    Abstract:
    Objective.Deep-learning auto-contouring (DL-AC) promises standardisation of organ-at-risk (OAR) contouring, enhancing quality and improving efficiency in radiotherapy. No commercial models exist for OAR contouring based on brain magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). We trained and evaluated computed tomography (CT) and MRI OAR autosegmentation models in RayStation. To ascertain clinical usability, we investigated the geometric impact of contour editing before training on model quality.Approach.Retrospective glioma cases were randomly selected for training (n= 32, 47) and validation (n= 9, 10) for MRI and CT, respectively. Clinical contours were edited using international consensus (gold standard) based on MRI and CT. MRI models were trained (i) using the original clinical contours based on planning CT and rigidly registered T1-weighted gadolinium-enhanced MRI (MRIu), (ii) as (i), further edited based on CT anatomy, to meet international consensus guidelines (MRIeCT), and (iii) as (i), further edited based on MRI anatomy (MRIeMRI). CT models were trained using: (iv) original clinical contours (CTu) and (v) clinical contours edited based on CT anatomy (CTeCT). Auto-contours were geometrically compared to gold standard validation contours (CTeCT or MRIeMRI) using Dice Similarity Coefficient, sensitivity, and mean distance to agreement. Models' performances were compared using paired Student's t-testing.Main results.The edited autosegmentation models successfully generated more segmentations than the unedited models. Paired t-testing showed editing pituitary, orbits, optic nerves, lenses, and optic chiasm on MRI before training significantly improved at least one geometry metric. MRI-based DL-AC performed worse than CT-based in delineating the lacrimal gland, whereas the CT-based performed worse in delineating the optic chiasm. No significant differences were found between the CTeCT and CTu except for optic chiasm.Significance.T1w-MRI DL-AC could segment all brain OARs except the lacrimal glands, which cannot be easily visualized on T1w-MRI. Editing contours on MRI before model training improved geometric performance. MRI DL-AC in RT may improve consistency, quality and efficiency but requires careful editing of training contours.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]