Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35580067›Full record

ArticleJournal of applied clinical medical physics2022

Automatic contouring QA method using a deep learning-based autocontouring system.

Dong Joo Rhee, Chidinma P Anakwenze Akinfenwa, Bastien Rigaud, Anuja Jhingran, Carlos E Cardenas, Lifei Zhang, Surendra Prajapati, Stephen F Kry, Kristy K Brock, Beth M Beadle and 8 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of applied clinical medical physics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed
2.8field-weighted citation impact, top 7% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

22 citing papers in PubMed, 30 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

18 authors at 7 institutions in 2 countries.

Dong Joo RheeThe University of Texas Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences at Houston, Houston, Texas, USA.
Chidinma P Anakwenze AkinfenwaDepartment of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA.
Bastien RigaudDepartment of Imaging Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA.
Anuja JhingranDepartment of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA.
Carlos E CardenasDepartment of Radiation Physics, Division of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA.
Lifei ZhangDepartment of Radiation Physics, Division of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA.
Surendra PrajapatiDepartment of Radiation Physics, Division of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA.
Stephen F KryDepartment of Radiation Physics, Division of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA.
Kristy K BrockDepartment of Imaging Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA.
Beth M BeadleDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California, USA.
William ShawDepartment of Medical Physics (G68), University of the Free State, Bloemfontein, South Africa.
Frederika O'ReillyDepartment of Medical Physics (G68), University of the Free State, Bloemfontein, South Africa.
Jeannette ParkesDivision of Radiation Oncology and Medical Physics, University of Cape Town and Groote Schuur Hospital, Cape Town, South Africa.
Hester BurgerDivision of Radiation Oncology and Medical Physics, University of Cape Town and Groote Schuur Hospital, Cape Town, South Africa.
Nazia FakieDivision of Radiation Oncology and Medical Physics, University of Cape Town and Groote Schuur Hospital, Cape Town, South Africa.
Chris TrauernichtDivision of Medical Physics, Stellenbosch University, Tygerberg Academic Hospital, Cape Town, South Africa.
Hannah SimondsDivision of Radiation Oncology, Stellenbosch University, Tygerberg Academic Hospital, Cape Town, South Africa.
Laurence E CourtDepartment of Radiation Physics, Division of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA.
The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center · USStellenbosch University · ZAUniversity of Cape Town · ZAUniversity of the Free State · ZAGroote Schuur Hospital · ZAStanford University · USThe University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo determine the most accurate similarity metric when using an independent system to verify automatically generated contours.

methodsA reference autocontouring system (primary system to create clinical contours) and a verification autocontouring system (secondary system to test the primary contours) were used to generate a pair of 6 female pelvic structures (UteroCervix [uterus + cervix], CTVn [nodal clinical target volume (CTV)], PAN [para-aortic lymph nodes], bladder, rectum, and kidneys) on 49 CT scans from our institution and 38 from other institutions. Additionally, clinically acceptable and unacceptable contours were manually generated using the 49 internal CT scans. Eleven similarity metrics (volumetric Dice similarity coefficient (DSC), Hausdorff distance, 95% Hausdorff distance, mean surface distance, and surface DSC with tolerances from 1 to 10 mm) were calculated between the reference and the verification autocontours, and between the manually generated and the verification autocontours. A support vector machine (SVM) was used to determine the threshold that separates clinically acceptable and unacceptable contours for each structure. The 11 metrics were investigated individually and in certain combinations. Linear, radial basis function, sigmoid, and polynomial kernels were tested using the combinations of metrics as inputs for the SVM.

resultsThe highest contouring error detection accuracies were 0.91 for the UteroCervix, 0.90 for the CTVn, 0.89 for the PAN, 0.92 for the bladder, 0.95 for the rectum, and 0.97 for the kidneys and were achieved using surface DSCs with a thickness of 1, 2, or 3 mm. The linear kernel was the most accurate and consistent when a combination of metrics was used as an input for the SVM. However, the best model accuracy from the combinations of metrics was not better than the best model accuracy from a surface DSC as an input.

conclusionsWe distinguished clinically acceptable contours from clinically unacceptable contours with an accuracy higher than 0.9 for the targets and critical structures in patients with cervical cancer; the most accurate similarity metric was surface DSC with a thickness of 1, 2, or 3 mm.

Indexed as

Deep LearningAlgorithmsFemaleHumansLymph NodesPelvisRadiotherapy Planning, Computer-AssistedTomography, X-Ray Computedauto-contourdeep learningsimilarity metrics

Identifiers

PMID35580067
PMCPMC9359039
OpenAlexW4280570209

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.