Purpose We recently described the validation of deep learning-based auto-segmented contour (DC) models for organs at risk (OAR) and clinical target volumes (CTV). In this study, we evaluate the performance of implemented DC models in the clinical radiotherapy (RT) planning workflow and report on user experience. Methods and materials DC models were implemented at two cancer centers and used to generate OAR and CTVs for all patients undergoing RT for a central nervous system (CNS), head and neck (H&N), or prostate cancer. Radiation Therapists/Dosimetrists and Radiation Oncologists completed post-contouring surveys rating the degree of edits required for DCs (1 = minimal, 5 = significant) and overall DC satisfaction (1 = poor, 5 = high). Unedited DCs were compared to the edited treatment approved contours using Dice similarity coefficient (DSC) and 95% Hausdorff distance (HD). Results Between September 19, 2019 and March 6, 2020, DCs were generated on approximately 551 eligible cases. 203 surveys were collected on 27 CNS, 54 H&N, and 93 prostate RT plans, resulting in an overall survey compliance rate of 32%. The majority of OAR DCs required minimal edits subjectively (mean editing score ≤ 2) and objectively (mean DSC and 95% HD was ≥ 0.90 and ≤ 2.0 mm). Mean OAR satisfaction score was 4.1 for CNS, 4.4 for H&N, and 4.6 for prostate structures. Overall CTV satisfaction score (n = 25), which encompassed the prostate, seminal vesicles, and neck lymph node volumes, was 4.1. Conclusions Previously validated OAR DC models for CNS, H&N, and prostate RT planning required minimal subjective and objective edits and resulted in a positive user experience, although low survey compliance was a concern. CTV DC model evaluation was even more limited, but high user satisfaction suggests that they may have served as appropriate starting points for patient specific edits.

No abstract

The purpose of this study is to evaluate the accuracy and precision of the Clarity 3D ultrasound system to track prostate gland positional variations due to setup error and organ motion. Seventeen patients (n=17) undergoing radical external beam radiation therapy for localized prostate cancer were studied. Subsequent to initial reference ultrasound and planning CT scans, each patient underwent seven repeat weekly tracking CT and ultrasound (US) scans during the course of treatment. Variations in the location of the prostate between reference and tracking scans were measured. Differences reported by CT and ultrasound scans are compared. Ultrasound tracking was initially performed clinically by a group of trained general users. Retrospective prostate localization was then performed by a trained dedicated user upon the original raw data set and also a reduced data set derived from the original by an expert user from Resonant Medical. Correlation accuracy between ultrasound and CT shifts acquired and delineated by a pool of trained general users was deemed unacceptable for radiotherapy purposes. A mean discrepancy between CT and US localizations of greater than 10 mm, with a 5 mm or greater discrepancy rate of nearly 90%, was observed. Retrospective analysis by a dedicated user of both the original and Resonant Medical reduced data sets yielded mean CT‐Us discrepancies of 8.7 mm and 7.4 mm, respectively. Unfortunately, the 5 mm or greater CT‐US discord rate for these retrospective analyses failed to drop below 80%. The greatest disparity between CT and ultrasound was consistently observed in the superior–inferior direction, while greatest agreement was achieved in the lateral dimension. Despite an expert reanalysis of the original data, the Clarity ultrasound system failed to deliver an acceptable level of geometric accuracy required for modern radiotherapy purposes.PACS numbers: 8755ne, 87.56Da, 87.63dh

No abstract