Background and purpose: Target volumes and organs-at-risk (OARs) for radiotherapy (RT) planning are manually defined, which is a tedious and inaccurate process. We sought to assess the feasibility, time reduction, and acceptability of an atlas-based autosegmentation (AS) compared to manual segmentation (MS) of OARs.
Materials and methods: A commercial platform generated 16 OARs. Resident physicians were randomly assigned to modify AS OAR (AS+R) or to draw MS OAR followed by attending physician correction. Dice similarity coefficient (DSC) was used to measure overlap between groups compared with attending approved OARs (DSC=1 means perfect overlap). 40 cases were segmented.
Results: Mean ± SD segmentation time in the AS+R group was 19.7 ± 8.0 min, compared to 28.5 ± 8.0 min in the MS cohort, amounting to a 30.9% time reduction (Wilcoxon p<0.01). For each OAR, AS DSC was statistically different from both AS+R and MS ROIs (all Steel-Dwass p<0.01) except the spinal cord and the mandible, suggesting oversight of AS/MS processes is required; AS+R and MS DSCs were non-different. AS compared to attending approved OAR DSCs varied considerably, with a chiasm mean ± SD DSC of 0.37 ± 0.32 and brainstem of 0.97 ± 0.03.
Conclusions: Autosegmentation provides a time savings in head and neck regions of interest generation. However, attending physician approval remains vital.
Keywords: Atlas-based autosegmentation; Autocontouring; Automatic segmentation; Head and neck; Normal tissue; Organs-at-risk.
Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.