Suppr超能文献

放疗中自动勾画系统评估指标的综述

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

机构信息

The Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK; The Royal Marsden Hospital, London, UK.

The Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK; The Royal Marsden Hospital, London, UK.

出版信息

Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol). 2023 Jun;35(6):354-369. doi: 10.1016/j.clon.2023.01.016. Epub 2023 Jan 31.

Abstract

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.

摘要

自动勾画可能会彻底改变未来的放射治疗计划。目前,缺乏评估和验证自动勾画系统的共识,限制了其临床应用。本综述定量分析了 2021 年发表的研究中使用的评估指标,并评估了标准化实践的必要性。我们对评估放射治疗自动勾画的文献进行了 PubMed 检索。评估了论文中使用的指标类型和生成地面真实比较器的方法。我们的 PubMed 搜索确定了 212 项研究,其中 117 项符合临床综述标准。117 项研究中有 116 项(99.1%)使用了几何评估指标。这包括在 113 项(96.6%)研究中使用的 Dice 相似系数。22 项(18.8%)、27 项(23.1%)和 18 项(15.4%)研究分别较少使用临床相关指标,如定性、剂量学和节省时间的指标。每个指标类别都存在异质性。超过 90 个不同的几何度量名称被使用。定性评估方法在所有论文中除了两篇之外均不同。用于生成剂量学评估的放射治疗计划的方法存在差异。仅 11 项(9.4%)论文考虑了编辑时间。65 项(55.6%)研究使用单个手动轮廓作为地面真实比较器。只有 31 项(26.5%)研究将自动轮廓与通常的观察者内和/或观察者间变异进行了比较。总之,目前研究论文在评估自动生成轮廓的准确性方面存在显著差异。几何指标是最受欢迎的,但它们的临床效用是未知的。用于进行临床评估的方法存在异质性。考虑系统实施的不同阶段可能为决定最合适的指标提供框架。该分析支持在自动勾画的临床实施方面达成共识的必要性。

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验