Automatic contour quality assurance using deep-learning based contours.

Journal: Physics in medicine and biology
Published Date:

Abstract

Safe deployment of auto-contouring models requires the inclusion of automated quality assurance (QA). One such approach is to use two independent auto-contouring models and compare them geometrically for acceptability. This is not effective because geometric differences may not correlate with clinically significant errors. Herein, we investigated whether a two-contour QA system is improved by including dose in this comparison.Volumetric modulated arc therapy plans were generated for 86 head and neck (H&N) and 50 cervical (GYN) cancer patients, using clinically-approved planning target volumes (PTVs) and auto-contour organs-at-risk (OARs) from a primary auto-contouring model. Doses to the primary OARs were compared with doses to manually drawn and approved OARs ('the truth'). A difference inor⩾ 2 Gy was identified as a reporting error (). A second, independent auto-contouring model was then used to contour the OARs (verification). The primary and verification auto-contouring models were compared geometrically (dice similarity coefficient (DSC), surface DSC, 95% Hausdorff distance, mean surface distance) and dosimetrically (,). The ability of comparison metrics between the two auto-contouring models to flag actual dosimetric errors (i.e. primary model compared with the truth) was investigated. A logistic regression model was used to predict. The data was divided by disease site and into 50/50 stratified training and testing sets;-fold cross validation was employed during training to avoid overfitting. H&N structures were further divided into size-specific groups to improve model performance and generalizability.Including dose metrics in the logistic regression model to predictincreased the performance in terms of receiver-operating characteristic curve-area under the curve and area under the precision-recall curve in the test set for H&N small structures. For, including dose metrics increased performance for H&N small structures, H&N medium structures, and GYN structures.In many instances, utilizing dose with geometric comparisons can improve the ability of a verification model to flag potential errors from a primary auto-contouring model.

Authors

  • Barbara Marquez
    Department of Radiation Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas; The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center UTHealth Houston Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences, Houston, Texas.
  • David Fuentes
    Department of Imaging Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, United States.
  • Christine B Peterson
    Department of Biostatistics, Division of Basic Sciences, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, 77030, USA.
  • Christine Peterson
  • Dong Joo Rhee
  • D J Rhee
    Department of Radiation Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, United States of America.
  • Raphael Douglas
    Department of Radiation Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, United States of America.
  • Raphael J Douglas
    Radiation Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center Department of Radiation Physics, 1400 Pressler Street, Pickens 8th floor, Houston, Texas, 77030, UNITED STATES.
  • Raymond Mumme
    Department of Radiation Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas.
  • Raymond P Mumme
    Department of Radiation Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, United States.
  • Anuja Jhingran
    Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA.
  • Julianne Pollard-Larkin
    Department of Radiation Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, United States of America.
  • Julianne M Pollard
    Dept. of Radiation Physics University of Texas, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center Department of Radiation Physics, 1400 Pressler Street, Houston, Texas, 77030, UNITED STATES.
  • Surendra Prajapati
    Department of Radiation Physics, Division of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA.
  • Thomas Whitaker
    Radiation Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center Department of Radiation Physics, 1400 Pressler Street, Pickens 8th floor, Houston, Texas, 77030, UNITED STATES.
  • Laurence Court
    Department of Imaging Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas; Department of Radiation Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas.
  • Laurence E Court
    Department of Radiation Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas.