Auto-segmentation for total marrow irradiation

Deep learning-based optimization of field geometry for total marrow irradiation delivered with volumetric modulated arc therapy

BACKGROUND

Total marrow (lymphoid) irradiation (TMI/TMLI) is a radiotherapy treatment used to selectively target the bone marrow and lymph nodes in conditioning regimens for allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. A complex field geometry is needed to cover the large planning target volume (PTV) of TMI/TMLI with volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT). Five isocenters and ten overlapping fields are needed for the upper body, while, for patients with large anatomical conformation, two specific isocenters are placed on the arms. The creation of a field geometry is clinically challenging and is performed by a medical physicist (MP) specialized in TMI/TMLI.

PURPOSE

To develop convolutional neural networks (CNNs) for automatically generating the field geometry of TMI/TMLI.

METHODS

The dataset comprised 117 patients treated with TMI/TMLI between 2011 and 2023 at our Institute. The CNN input image consisted of three channels, obtained by projecting along the sagittal plane: (1) average CT pixel intensity within the PTV; (2) PTV mask; (3) brain, lungs, liver, bowel, and bladder masks. This "averaged" frontal view combined the information analyzed by the MP when setting the field geometry in the treatment planning system (TPS). Two CNNs were trained to predict the isocenters coordinates and jaws apertures for patients with (CNN-1) and without (CNN-2) isocenters on the arms. Local optimization methods were used to refine the models output based on the anatomy of the patient. Model evaluation was performed on a test set of 15 patients in two ways: (1) by computing the root mean squared error (RMSE) between the CNN output and ground truth; (2) with a qualitative assessment of manual and generated field geometries-scale: 1 = not adequate, 4 = adequate-carried out in blind mode by three MPs with different expertise in TMI/TMLI. The Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used to evaluate the independence of the given scores between manual and generated configurations (p < 0.05 significant).

RESULTS

The average and standard deviation values of RMSE for CNN-1 and CNN-2 before/after local optimization were 15 ± 2/13 ± 3 mm and 16 ± 2/18 ± 4 mm, respectively. The CNNs were integrated into a planning automation software for TMI/TMLI such that the MPs could analyze in detail the proposed field geometries directly in the TPS. The selection of the CNN model to create the field geometry was based on the PTV width to approximate the decision process of an experienced MP and provide a single option of field configuration. We found no significant differences between the manual and generated field geometries for any MP, with median values of 4 versus 4 (p = 0.92), 3 versus 3 (p = 0.78), 4 versus 3 (p = 0.48), respectively. Starting from October 2023, the generated field geometry has been introduced in our clinical practice for prospective patients.

CONCLUSIONS

The generated field geometries were clinically acceptable and adequate, even for an MP with high level of expertise in TMI/TMLI. Incorporating the knowledge of the MPs into the development cycle was crucial for optimizing the models, especially in this scenario with limited data.

NRG Oncology Assessment of Artificial Intelligence Deep Learning-Based Auto-segmentation for Radiation Therapy: Current Developments, Clinical Considerations, and Future Directions

Deep learning neural networks (DLNN) in Artificial intelligence (AI) have been extensively explored for automatic segmentation in radiotherapy (RT). In contrast to traditional model-based methods, data-driven AI-based models for auto-segmentation have shown high accuracy in early studies in research settings and controlled environment (single institution). Vendor-provided commercial AI models are made available as part of the integrated treatment planning system (TPS) or as a stand-alone tool that provides streamlined workflow interacting with the main TPS. These commercial tools have drawn clinics' attention thanks to their significant benefit in reducing the workload from manual contouring and shortening the duration of treatment planning. However, challenges occur when applying these commercial AI-based segmentation models to diverse clinical scenarios, particularly in uncontrolled environments. Contouring nomenclature and guideline standardization has been the main task undertaken by the NRG Oncology. AI auto-segmentation holds the potential clinical trial participants to reduce interobserver variations, nomenclature non-compliance, and contouring guideline deviations. Meanwhile, trial reviewers could use AI tools to verify contour accuracy and compliance of those submitted datasets. In recognizing the growing clinical utilization and potential of these commercial AI auto-segmentation tools, NRG Oncology has formed a working group to evaluate the clinical utilization and potential of commercial AI auto-segmentation tools. The group will assess in-house and commercially available AI models, evaluation metrics, clinical challenges, and limitations, as well as future developments in addressing these challenges. General recommendations are made in terms of the implementation of these commercial AI models, as well as precautions in recognizing the challenges and limitations.

Deep learning and atlas-based models to streamline the segmentation workflow of total marrow and lymphoid irradiation

PURPOSE

To improve the workflow of total marrow and lymphoid irradiation (TMLI) by enhancing the delineation of organs at risk (OARs) and clinical target volume (CTV) using deep learning (DL) and atlas-based (AB) segmentation models.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Ninety-five TMLI plans optimized in our institute were analyzed. Two commercial DL software were tested for segmenting 18 OARs. An AB model for lymph node CTV (CTV_LN) delineation was built using 20 TMLI patients. The AB model was evaluated on 20 independent patients, and a semiautomatic approach was tested by correcting the automatic contours. The generated OARs and CTV_LN contours were compared to manual contours in terms of topological agreement, dose statistics, and time workload. A clinical decision tree was developed to define a specific contouring strategy for each OAR.

RESULTS

The two DL models achieved a median [interquartile range] dice similarity coefficient (DSC) of 0.84 [0.71;0.93] and 0.85 [0.70;0.93] across the OARs. The absolute median Dmean difference between manual and the two DL models was 2.0 [0.7;6.6]% and 2.4 [0.9;7.1]%. The AB model achieved a median DSC of 0.70 [0.66;0.74] for CTV_LN delineation, increasing to 0.94 [0.94;0.95] after manual revision, with minimal Dmean differences. Since September 2022, our institution has implemented DL and AB models for all TMLI patients, reducing from 5 to 2 h the time required to complete the entire segmentation process.

CONCLUSION

DL models can streamline the TMLI contouring process of OARs. Manual revision is still necessary for lymph node delineation using AB models.

Segmentation of 71 Anatomical Structures Necessary for the Evaluation of Guideline-Conforming Clinical Target Volumes in Head and Neck Cancers

The delineation of the clinical target volumes (CTVs) for radiation therapy is time-consuming, requires intensive training and shows high inter-observer variability. Supervised deep-learning methods depend heavily on consistent training data; thus, State-of-the-Art research focuses on making CTV labels more homogeneous and strictly bounding them to current standards. International consensus expert guidelines standardize CTV delineation by conditioning the extension of the clinical target volume on the surrounding anatomical structures. Training strategies that directly follow the construction rules given in the expert guidelines or the possibility of quantifying the conformance of manually drawn contours to the guidelines are still missing. Seventy-one anatomical structures that are relevant to CTV delineation in head- and neck-cancer patients, according to the expert guidelines, were segmented on 104 computed tomography scans, to assess the possibility of automating their segmentation by State-of-the-Art deep learning methods. All 71 anatomical structures were subdivided into three subsets of non-overlapping structures, and a 3D nnU-Net model with five-fold cross-validation was trained for each subset, to automatically segment the structures on planning computed tomography scans. We report the DICE, Hausdorff distance and surface DICE for 71 + 5 anatomical structures, for most of which no previous segmentation accuracies have been reported. For those structures for which prediction values have been reported, our segmentation accuracy matched or exceeded the reported values. The predictions from our models were always better than those predicted by the TotalSegmentator. The sDICE with 2 mm margin was larger than 80% for almost all the structures. Individual structures with decreased segmentation accuracy are analyzed and discussed with respect to their impact on the CTV delineation following the expert guidelines. No deviation is expected to affect the rule-based automation of the CTV delineation.

Integrating Artificial Intelligence Into Radiation Oncology: Can Humans Spot AI?

Introduction Artificial intelligence (AI) is transforming healthcare, particularly in radiation oncology. AI-based contouring tools like Limbus are designed to delineate Organs at Risk (OAR) and Target Volumes quickly. This study evaluates the accuracy and efficiency of AI contouring compared to human radiation oncologists and the ability of professionals to differentiate between AI-generated and human-generated contours. Methods At a recent AI conference in Abu Dhabi, a blind comparative analysis was performed to assess AI's performance in radiation oncology. Participants included four human radiation oncologists and the Limbus® AI software. They contoured specific regions from CT scans of a breast cancer patient. The audience, consisting of healthcare professionals and AI experts, was challenged to identify the AI-generated contours. The exercise was repeated twice to observe any learning effects. Time taken for contouring and audience identification accuracy were recorded. Results Initially, only 28% of the audience correctly identified the AI contours, which slightly increased to 31% in the second attempt. This indicated a difficulty in distinguishing between AI and human expertise. The AI completed contouring in up to 60 seconds, significantly faster than the human average of 8 minutes. Discussion The results indicate that AI can perform radiation contouring comparably to human oncologists but much faster. The challenge faced by professionals in identifying AI versus human contours highlights AI's advanced capabilities in medical tasks. Conclusion AI shows promise in enhancing radiation oncology workflow by reducing contouring time without quality compromise. Further research is needed to confirm AI contouring's clinical efficacy and its integration into routine practice.