A deep learning based automatic segmentation approach for anatomical structures in intensity modulation radiotherapy

A Review of Artificial Intelligence Application for Radiotherapy

Background and Purpose

Artificial intelligence (AI) is a technique which tries to think like humans and mimic human behaviors. It has been considered as an alternative in a lot of human-dependent steps in radiotherapy (RT), since the human participation is a principal uncertainty source in RT. The aim of this work is to provide a systematic summary of the current literature on AI application for RT, and to clarify its role for RT practice in terms of clinical views.

Materials and Methods

A systematic literature search of PubMed and Google Scholar was performed to identify original articles involving the AI applications in RT from the inception to 2022. Studies were included if they reported original data and explored the clinical applications of AI in RT.

Results

The selected studies were categorized into three aspects of RT: organ and lesion segmentation, treatment planning and quality assurance. For each aspect, this review discussed how these AI tools could be involved in the RT protocol.

Conclusions

Our study revealed that AI was a potential alternative for the human-dependent steps in the complex process of RT.

A Review of the Metrics Used to Assess Auto-Contouring Systems in Radiotherapy

Auto-contouring could revolutionise future planning of radiotherapy treatment. The lack of consensus on how to assess and validate auto-contouring systems currently limits clinical use. This review formally quantifies the assessment metrics used in studies published during one calendar year and assesses the need for standardised practice. A PubMed literature search was undertaken for papers evaluating radiotherapy auto-contouring published during 2021. Papers were assessed for types of metric and the methodology used to generate ground-truth comparators. Our PubMed search identified 212 studies, of which 117 met the criteria for clinical review. Geometric assessment metrics were used in 116 of 117 studies (99.1%). This includes the Dice Similarity Coefficient used in 113 (96.6%) studies. Clinically relevant metrics, such as qualitative, dosimetric and time-saving metrics, were less frequently used in 22 (18.8%), 27 (23.1%) and 18 (15.4%) of 117 studies, respectively. There was heterogeneity within each category of metric. Over 90 different names for geometric measures were used. Methods for qualitative assessment were different in all but two papers. Variation existed in the methods used to generate radiotherapy plans for dosimetric assessment. Consideration of editing time was only given in 11 (9.4%) papers. A single manual contour as a ground-truth comparator was used in 65 (55.6%) studies. Only 31 (26.5%) studies compared auto-contours to usual inter- and/or intra-observer variation. In conclusion, significant variation exists in how research papers currently assess the accuracy of automatically generated contours. Geometric measures are the most popular, however their clinical utility is unknown. There is heterogeneity in the methods used to perform clinical assessment. Considering the different stages of system implementation may provide a framework to decide the most appropriate metrics. This analysis supports the need for a consensus on the clinical implementation of auto-contouring.