Marquez Barbara, Wooten Zachary T, Salazar Ramon M, Peterson Christine B, Fuentes David T, Whitaker T J, Jhingran Anuja, Pollard-Larkin Julianne, Prajapati Surendra, Beadle Beth, Cardenas Carlos E, Netherton Tucker J, Court Laurence E
Department of Radiation Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, USA.
The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center UTHealth Houston Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences, Houston, TX 77030, USA.
Diagnostics (Basel). 2024 Jul 29;14(15):1632. doi: 10.3390/diagnostics14151632.
This study aimed to determine the relationship between geometric and dosimetric agreement metrics in head and neck (H&N) cancer radiotherapy plans. A total 287 plans were retrospectively analyzed, comparing auto-contoured and clinically used contours using a Dice similarity coefficient (DSC), surface DSC (sDSC), and Hausdorff distance (HD). Organs-at-risk (OARs) with ≥200 cGy dose differences from the clinical contour in terms of D (D0.01cc) and D were further examined against proximity to the planning target volume (PTV). A secondary set of 91 plans from multiple institutions validated these findings. For 4995 contour pairs across 19 OARs, 90% had a DSC, sDSC, and HD of at least 0.75, 0.86, and less than 7.65 mm, respectively. Dosimetrically, the absolute difference between the two contour sets was <200 cGy for 95% of OARs in terms of D and 96% in terms of D. In total, 97% of OARs exhibiting significant dose differences between the clinically edited contour and auto-contour were within 2.5 cm PTV regardless of geometric agreement. There was an approximately linear trend between geometric agreement and identifying at least 200 cGy dose differences, with higher geometric agreement corresponding to a lower fraction of cases being identified. Analysis of the secondary dataset validated these findings. Geometric indices are approximate indicators of contour quality and identify contours exhibiting significant dosimetric discordance. For a small subset of OARs within 2.5 cm of the PTV, geometric agreement metrics can be misleading in terms of contour quality.
本研究旨在确定头颈部(H&N)癌放疗计划中几何一致性和剂量学一致性指标之间的关系。回顾性分析了总共287个计划,使用骰子相似系数(DSC)、表面DSC(sDSC)和豪斯多夫距离(HD)比较自动勾画轮廓和临床使用的轮廓。对于在D(D0.01cc)和D方面与临床轮廓存在≥200 cGy剂量差异的危及器官(OARs),进一步根据其与计划靶体积(PTV)的接近程度进行检查。来自多个机构的91个计划的第二组数据验证了这些结果。对于19个OARs的4995对轮廓,90%的DSC、sDSC和HD分别至少为0.75、0.86和小于7.65 mm。在剂量学方面,就D而言,95%的OARs的两个轮廓集之间的绝对差异<200 cGy,就D而言为96%。总体而言,无论几何一致性如何,在临床编辑轮廓和自动轮廓之间表现出显著剂量差异的OARs中有97%在PTV的2.5 cm范围内。几何一致性和识别至少200 cGy剂量差异之间存在近似线性趋势,几何一致性越高,识别出的病例比例越低。对第二数据集的分析验证了这些结果。几何指标是轮廓质量的近似指标,可识别表现出显著剂量学不一致的轮廓。对于PTV 2.5 cm范围内的一小部分OARs,几何一致性指标在轮廓质量方面可能会产生误导。