Autosegmentation for thoracic radiation treatment planning: A grand challenge at AAPM 2017

  • Jinzhong Yang
    Department of Radiation Physics The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center Houston TX USA
  • Harini Veeraraghavan
    Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center New York NY USA
  • Samuel G. Armato
    Department of Radiology The University of Chicago Chicago IL USA
  • Keyvan Farahani
    Cancer Imaging Program National Cancer Institute Bethesda MD USA
  • Justin S. Kirby
    Cancer Imaging Program Frederick National Laboratory for Cancer Research sponsored by the National Cancer Institute Frederick MD USA
  • Jayashree Kalpathy‐Kramer
    Harvard Medical School Boston MA USA
  • Wouter van Elmpt
    Department of Radiation Oncology (MAASTRO) GROW ‐ School for Oncology and Developmental Biology Maastricht University Medical Center Maastricht The Netherlands
  • Andre Dekker
    Department of Radiation Oncology (MAASTRO) GROW ‐ School for Oncology and Developmental Biology Maastricht University Medical Center Maastricht The Netherlands
  • Xiao Han
    Elekta Inc. Maryland Heights MO USA
  • Xue Feng
    Department of Biomedical Engineering University of Virginia Charlottesville VA USA
  • Paul Aljabar
    Mirada Medical Ltd Oxford UK
  • Bruno Oliveira
    Life and Health Sciences Research Institute (ICVS), School of Medicine University of Minho Braga Portugal
  • Brent van der Heyden
    Department of Radiation Oncology (MAASTRO) GROW ‐ School for Oncology and Developmental Biology Maastricht University Medical Center Maastricht The Netherlands
  • Leonid Zamdborg
    Department of Radiation Oncology Beaumont Health Royal Oak MI USA
  • Dao Lam
    Department of Radiation Oncology Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis St. Louis MO USA
  • Mark Gooding
    Mirada Medical Ltd Oxford UK
  • Gregory C. Sharp
    Massachusetts General Hospital Boston MA USA

説明

<jats:sec><jats:title>Purpose</jats:title><jats:p>This report presents the methods and results of the Thoracic Auto‐Segmentation Challenge organized at the 2017 Annual Meeting of American Association of Physicists in Medicine. The purpose of the challenge was to provide a benchmark dataset and platform for evaluating performance of autosegmentation methods of organs at risk (OARs) in thoracic CT images.</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title> Methods </jats:title><jats:p>Sixty thoracic CT scans provided by three different institutions were separated into 36 training, 12 offline testing, and 12 online testing scans. Eleven participants completed the offline challenge, and seven completed the online challenge. The OARs were left and right lungs, heart, esophagus, and spinal cord. Clinical contours used for treatment planning were quality checked and edited to adhere to the RTOG 1106 contouring guidelines. Algorithms were evaluated using the Dice coefficient, Hausdorff distance, and mean surface distance. A consolidated score was computed by normalizing the metrics against interrater variability and averaging over all patients and structures.</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title> Results </jats:title><jats:p>The interrater study revealed highest variability in Dice for the esophagus and spinal cord, and in surface distances for lungs and heart. Five out of seven algorithms that participated in the online challenge employed deep‐learning methods. Although the top three participants using deep learning produced the best segmentation for all structures, there was no significant difference in the performance among them. The fourth place participant used a multi‐atlas‐based approach. The highest Dice scores were produced for lungs, with averages ranging from 0.95 to 0.98, while the lowest Dice scores were produced for esophagus, with a range of 0.55–0.72.</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title> Conclusion </jats:title><jats:p>The results of the challenge showed that the lungs and heart can be segmented fairly accurately by various algorithms, while deep‐learning methods performed better on the esophagus. Our dataset together with the manual contours for all training cases continues to be available publicly as an ongoing benchmarking resource.</jats:p></jats:sec>

収録刊行物

被引用文献 (4)*注記

もっと見る

問題の指摘

ページトップへ