19
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    3
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Assessment of accuracy and efficiency of atlas-based autosegmentation for prostate radiotherapy in a variety of clinical conditions.

      Strahlentherapie Und Onkologie
      Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Pattern Recognition, Automated, methods, Prostatic Neoplasms, radiography, radiotherapy, Radiographic Image Interpretation, Computer-Assisted, Radiotherapy, Conformal, Radiotherapy, Image-Guided, Reproducibility of Results, Sensitivity and Specificity, Subtraction Technique, Tomography, X-Ray Computed

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPubMed
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          The goal of the current study was to evaluate the commercially available atlas-based autosegmentation software for clinical use in prostate radiotherapy. The accuracy was benchmarked against interobserver variability. A total of 20 planning computed tomographs (CTs) and 10 cone-beam CTs (CBCTs) were selected for prostate, rectum, and bladder delineation. The images varied regarding to individual (age, body mass index) and setup parameters (contrast agent, rectal balloon, implanted markers). Automatically created contours with ABAS(®) and iPlan(®) were compared to an expert's delineation by calculating the Dice similarity coefficient (DSC) and conformity index. Demo-atlases of both systems showed different results for bladder (DSC(ABAS) 0.86 ± 0.17, DSC(iPlan) 0.51 ± 0.30) and prostate (DSC(ABAS) 0.71 ± 0.14, DSC(iPlan) 0.57 ± 0.19). Rectum delineation (DSC(ABAS) 0.78 ± 0.11, DSC(iPlan) 0.84 ± 0.08) demonstrated differences between the systems but better correlation of the automatically drawn volumes. ABAS(®) was closest to the interobserver benchmark. Autosegmentation with iPlan(®), ABAS(®) and manual segmentation took 0.5, 4 and 15-20 min, respectively. Automatic contouring on CBCT showed high dependence on image quality (DSC bladder 0.54, rectum 0.42, prostate 0.34). For clinical routine, efforts are still necessary to either redesign algorithms implemented in autosegmentation or to optimize image quality for CBCT to guarantee required accuracy and time savings for adaptive radiotherapy.

          Related collections

          Author and article information

          Comments

          Comment on this article