Author:
Weissmann Thomas,Huang Yixing,Fischer Stefan,Roesch Johannes,Mansoorian Sina,Ayala Gaona Horacio,Gostian Antoniu-Oreste,Hecht Markus,Lettmaier Sebastian,Deloch Lisa,Frey Benjamin,Gaipl Udo S.,Distel Luitpold Valentin,Maier Andreas,Iro Heinrich,Semrau Sabine,Bert Christoph,Fietkau Rainer,Putz Florian
Abstract
BackgroundDeep learning-based head and neck lymph node level (HN_LNL) autodelineation is of high relevance to radiotherapy research and clinical treatment planning but still underinvestigated in academic literature. In particular, there is no publicly available open-source solution for large-scale autosegmentation of HN_LNL in the research setting.MethodsAn expert-delineated cohort of 35 planning CTs was used for training of an nnU-net 3D-fullres/2D-ensemble model for autosegmentation of 20 different HN_LNL. A second cohort acquired at the same institution later in time served as the test set (n = 20). In a completely blinded evaluation, 3 clinical experts rated the quality of deep learning autosegmentations in a head-to-head comparison with expert-created contours. For a subgroup of 10 cases, intraobserver variability was compared to the average deep learning autosegmentation accuracy on the original and recontoured set of expert segmentations. A postprocessing step to adjust craniocaudal boundaries of level autosegmentations to the CT slice plane was introduced and the effect of autocontour consistency with CT slice plane orientation on geometric accuracy and expert rating was investigated.ResultsBlinded expert ratings for deep learning segmentations and expert-created contours were not significantly different. Deep learning segmentations with slice plane adjustment were rated numerically higher (mean, 81.0 vs. 79.6, p = 0.185) and deep learning segmentations without slice plane adjustment were rated numerically lower (77.2 vs. 79.6, p = 0.167) than manually drawn contours. In a head-to-head comparison, deep learning segmentations with CT slice plane adjustment were rated significantly better than deep learning contours without slice plane adjustment (81.0 vs. 77.2, p = 0.004). Geometric accuracy of deep learning segmentations was not different from intraobserver variability (mean Dice per level, 0.76 vs. 0.77, p = 0.307). Clinical significance of contour consistency with CT slice plane orientation was not represented by geometric accuracy metrics (volumetric Dice, 0.78 vs. 0.78, p = 0.703).ConclusionsWe show that a nnU-net 3D-fullres/2D-ensemble model can be used for highly accurate autodelineation of HN_LNL using only a limited training dataset that is ideally suited for large-scale standardized autodelineation of HN_LNL in the research setting. Geometric accuracy metrics are only an imperfect surrogate for blinded expert rating.
Funder
Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung
Reference46 articles.
1. Delineation of the neck node levels for head and neck tumors: A 2013 update. DAHANCA, EORTC, HKNPCSG, NCIC CTG, NCRI, RTOG, TROG consensus guidelines;Grégoire;Radiother Oncol,2014
2. Selection of lymph node target volumes for definitive head and neck radiation therapy: A 2019 update;Biau;Radiother Oncol,2019
3. Intensity-modulated radiation therapy for head and neck cancer: emphasis on the selection and delineation of the targets;Eisbruch;Semin Radiat Oncol,2002
4. Patterns of care analysis for salivary gland cancer: a survey within the German society of radiation oncology (DEGRO) and recommendations for daily practice;von der Grün;Strahlentherapie und Onkologie Organ der Deutschen Rontgengesellschaft,2022
5. The impact of margin reduction on outcome and toxicity in head and neck cancer patients treated with image-guided volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT);Navran;Radiother Oncol,2019
Cited by
17 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献