Suppr超能文献

使用自动治疗计划系统,对头颈部CT图像上的危及器官进行勾画时,基于图谱的方法与深度学习方法的比较。

Comparison of atlas-based and deep learning methods for organs at risk delineation on head-and-neck CT images using an automated treatment planning system.

作者信息

Costea Madalina, Zlate Alexandra, Durand Morgane, Baudier Thomas, Grégoire Vincent, Sarrut David, Biston Marie-Claude

机构信息

Centre Léon Bérard, 28 rue Laennec, 69373 LYON Cedex 08, France; CREATIS, CNRS UMR5220, Inserm U1044, INSA-Lyon, Université Lyon 1, Villeurbanne, France.

MedEuropa, Strada Turnului 8, Brașov 500152, Romania.

出版信息

Radiother Oncol. 2022 Dec;177:61-70. doi: 10.1016/j.radonc.2022.10.029. Epub 2022 Nov 1.

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

To investigate the performance of head-and-neck (HN) organs-at-risk (OAR) automatic segmentation (AS) using four atlas-based (ABAS) and two deep learning (DL) solutions.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

All patients underwent iodine contrast-enhanced planning CT. Fourteen OAR were manually delineated. DL.1 and DL.2 solutions were trained with 63 mono-centric patients and > 1000 multi-centric patients, respectively. Ten and 15 patients with varied anatomies were selected for the atlas library and for testing, respectively. The evaluation was based on geometric indices (DICE coefficient and 95th percentile-Hausdorff Distance (HD)), time needed for manual corrections and clinical dosimetric endpoints obtained using automated treatment planning.

RESULTS

Both DICE and HD results indicated that DL algorithms generally performed better compared with ABAS algorithms for automatic segmentation of HN OAR. However, the hybrid-ABAS (ABAS.3) algorithm sometimes provided the highest agreement to the reference contours compared with the 2 DL. Compared with DL.2 and ABAS.3, DL.1 contours were the fastest to correct. For the 3 solutions, the differences in dose distributions obtained using AS contours and AS + manually corrected contours were not statistically significant. High dose differences could be observed when OAR contours were at short distances to the targets. However, this was not always interrelated.

CONCLUSION

DL methods generally showed higher delineation accuracy compared with ABAS methods for AS segmentation of HN OAR. Most ABAS contours had high conformity to the reference but were more time consuming than DL algorithms, especially when considering the computing time and the time spent on manual corrections.

摘要

背景与目的

使用四种基于图谱的(ABAS)和两种深度学习(DL)解决方案,研究头颈部(HN)危及器官(OAR)自动分割(AS)的性能。

材料与方法

所有患者均接受碘对比增强计划CT扫描。手动勾勒出14个OAR。DL.1和DL.2解决方案分别使用63例单中心患者和1000多例多中心患者进行训练。分别选择10例和15例解剖结构各异的患者用于图谱库构建和测试。评估基于几何指标(DICE系数和第95百分位数-豪斯多夫距离(HD))、手动校正所需时间以及使用自动治疗计划获得的临床剂量学终点。

结果

DICE和HD结果均表明,在HN OAR自动分割方面,DL算法总体上比ABAS算法表现更好。然而,与两种DL算法相比,混合ABAS(ABAS.3)算法有时与参考轮廓的一致性最高。与DL.2和ABAS.3相比,DL.1轮廓的校正速度最快。对于这三种解决方案,使用AS轮廓和AS +手动校正轮廓获得的剂量分布差异无统计学意义。当OAR轮廓与靶区距离较短时,可观察到高剂量差异。然而,这并不总是相互关联的。

结论

在HN OAR的AS分割中,与ABAS方法相比,DL方法通常显示出更高的勾勒准确性。大多数ABAS轮廓与参考轮廓具有高度一致性,但比DL算法更耗时,尤其是考虑到计算时间和手动校正所花费的时间时。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验