Add like
Add dislike
Add to saved papers

SU-C-BRB-05: Determining the Adequacy of Auto-Contouring Via Probabilistic Assessment of Ensuing Treatment Plan Metrics in Comparison with Manual Contours.

Medical Physics 2016 June
PURPOSE: To determine if auto-contour and manual-contour-based plans differ when evaluated with respect to probabilistic coverage metrics and biological model endpoints for prostate IMRT.

METHODS: Manual and auto-contours were created for 149 CT image sets acquired from 16 unique prostate patients. A single physician manually contoured all images. Auto-contouring was completed utilizing Pinnacle's Smart Probabilistic Image Contouring Engine (SPICE). For each CT, three different 78 Gy/39 fraction 7-beam IMRT plans are created; PD with drawn ROIs, PAS with auto-contoured ROIs, and PM with auto-contoured OARs with the manually drawn target. For each plan, 1000 virtual treatment simulations with different sampled systematic errors for each simulation and a different sampled random error for each fraction were performed using our in-house GPU-accelerated robustness analyzer tool which reports the statistical probability of achieving dose-volume metrics, NTCP, TCP, and the probability of achieving the optimization criteria for both auto-contoured (AS) and manually drawn (D) ROIs. Metrics are reported for all possible cross-evaluation pairs of ROI types (AS,D) and planning scenarios (PD,PAS,PM). Bhattacharyya coefficient (BC) is calculated to measure the PDF similarities for the dose-volume metric, NTCP, TCP, and objectives with respect to the manually drawn contour evaluated on base plan (D-PD).

RESULTS: We observe high BC values (BC≥0.94) for all OAR objectives. BC values of max dose objective on CTV also signify high resemblance (BC≥0.93) between the distributions. On the other hand, BC values for CTV's D95 and Dmin objectives are small for AS-PM, AS-PD. NTCP distributions are similar across all evaluation pairs, while TCP distributions of AS-PM, AS-PD sustain variations up to %6 compared to other evaluated pairs.

CONCLUSION: No significant probabilistic differences are observed in the metrics when auto-contoured OARs are used. The prostate auto-contour needs improvement to achieve clinically equivalent plans.

Full text links

We have located links that may give you full text access.
Can't access the paper?
Try logging in through your university/institutional subscription. For a smoother one-click institutional access experience, please use our mobile app.

Related Resources

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

Mobile app image

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.

By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.

Your Privacy Choices Toggle icon

You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app