Automatic contour quality assurance using deep-learning based contours

<i>Objective.</i>Safe deployment of auto-contouring models requires the inclusion of automated quality assurance (QA). One such approach is to use two independent auto-contouring models and compare them geometrically for acceptability. This is not effective because geometric differences may not correlate with clinically significant errors. Herein, we investigated whether a two-contour QA system is improved by including dose in this comparison.<i>Approach.</i>Volumetric modulated arc therapy plans were generated for 86 head and neck (H&N) and 50 cervical (GYN) cancer patients, using clinically-approved planning target volumes (PTVs) and auto-contour organs-at-risk (OARs) from a primary auto-contouring model. Doses to the primary OARs were compared with doses to manually drawn and approved OARs ('the truth'). A difference in<i>D</i><sub>mean</sub>or<i>D</i><sub>max</sub>⩾ 2 Gy was identified as a reporting error (<i>D</i><sub>error</sub>). A second, independent auto-contouring model was then used to contour the OARs (verification). The primary and verification auto-contouring models were compared geometrically (dice similarity coefficient (DSC), surface DSC, 95% Hausdorff distance, mean surface distance) and dosimetrically (<i>D</i><sub>mean</sub>,<i>D</i><sub>max</sub>). The ability of comparison metrics between the two auto-contouring models to flag actual dosimetric errors (i.e. primary model compared with the truth) was investigated. A logistic regression model was used to predict<i>D</i><sub>error</sub>. The data was divided by disease site and into 50/50 stratified training and testing sets;<i>k</i>-fold cross validation was employed during training to avoid overfitting. H&N structures were further divided into size-specific groups to improve model performance and generalizability.<i>Main results.</i>Including dose metrics in the logistic regression model to predict<i>D</i><sub>error, mean</sub>increased the performance in terms of receiver-operating characteristic curve-area under the curve and area under the precision-recall curve in the test set for H&N small structures. For<i>D</i><sub>error, max</sub>, including dose metrics increased performance for H&N small structures, H&N medium structures, and GYN structures.<i>Significance.</i>In many instances, utilizing dose with geometric comparisons can improve the ability of a verification model to flag potential errors from a primary auto-contouring model.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Physics in Medicine and Biology
Published
2025-06-18
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6560/ade5e6
Citations
1
Primary Topic
Advanced Radiotherapy Techniques
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
1.88

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Automatic contour quality assurance using deep-learning based contours

Dong Joo Rhee, Surendra Prajapati, Raymond Mumme, David Fuentes et al.
1 citations
Physics in Medicine and Biology
Advanced Radiotherapy Techniques
1.88
article

Automatic contour quality assurance using deep-learning based contours

Dong Joo Rhee, Surendra Prajapati, Raymond Mumme, David Fuentes, Thomas J. Whitaker, Barbara Marquez, Laurence E. Court, Anuja Jhingran, Raphael Douglas, Julianne Pollard‐Larkin, Christine B. Peterson
article en
1 citations

Abstract

<i>Objective.</i>Safe deployment of auto-contouring models requires the inclusion of automated quality assurance (QA). One such approach is to use two independent auto-contouring models and compare them geometrically for acceptability. This is not effective because geometric differences may not correlate with clinically significant errors. Herein, we investigated whether a two-contour QA system is improved by including dose in this comparison.<i>Approach.</i>Volumetric modulated arc therapy plans were generated for 86 head and neck (H&N) and 50 cervical (GYN) cancer patients, using clinically-approved planning target volumes (PTVs) and auto-contour organs-at-risk (OARs) from a primary auto-contouring model. Doses to the primary OARs were compared with doses to manually drawn and approved OARs ('the truth'). A difference in<i>D</i><sub>mean</sub>or<i>D</i><sub>max</sub>⩾ 2 Gy was identified as a reporting error (<i>D</i><sub>error</sub>). A second, independent auto-contouring model was then used to contour the OARs (verification). The primary and verification auto-contouring models were compared geometrically (dice similarity coefficient (DSC), surface DSC, 95% Hausdorff distance, mean surface distance) and dosimetrically (<i>D</i><sub>mean</sub>,<i>D</i><sub>max</sub>). The ability of comparison metrics between the two auto-contouring models to flag actual dosimetric errors (i.e. primary model compared with the truth) was investigated. A logistic regression model was used to predict<i>D</i><sub>error</sub>. The data was divided by disease site and into 50/50 stratified training and testing sets;<i>k</i>-fold cross validation was employed during training to avoid overfitting. H&N structures were further divided into size-specific groups to improve model performance and generalizability.<i>Main results.</i>Including dose metrics in the logistic regression model to predict<i>D</i><sub>error, mean</sub>increased the performance in terms of receiver-operating characteristic curve-area under the curve and area under the precision-recall curve in the test set for H&N small structures. For<i>D</i><sub>error, max</sub>, including dose metrics increased performance for H&N small structures, H&N medium structures, and GYN structures.<i>Significance.</i>In many instances, utilizing dose with geometric comparisons can improve the ability of a verification model to flag potential errors from a primary auto-contouring model.

Physics in Medicine and BiologyVol. 70(14)
The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center (US)
Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas
Openalex Percentile: Top 15%
Advanced Radiotherapy Techniques
1.88
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.