2016
DOI: 10.1120/jacmp.v17i2.5889
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The suitability of common metrics for assessing parotid and larynx autosegmentation accuracy

Abstract: Contouring structures in the head and neck is time‐consuming, and automatic segmentation is an important part of an adaptive radiotherapy workflow. Geometric accuracy of automatic segmentation algorithms has been widely reported, but there is no consensus as to which metrics provide clinically meaningful results. This study investigated whether geometric accuracy (as quantified by several commonly used metrics) was associated with dosimetric differences for the parotid and larynx, comparing automatically gener… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
4
1

Citation Types

2
23
0

Year Published

2016
2016
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
7
1
1

Relationship

2
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 19 publications
(26 citation statements)
references
References 29 publications
(33 reference statements)
2
23
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Development of NTCP models can be facilitated by generating agreement in dose constraint parameters, facilitated by a greater consistency in contouring the muscles of mastication. The reduction in variability in contouring the muscles of mastication may translate into a reduction in variability in reported dose to these structures [30]. It is beyond the scope of the present study however to determine the dosimetric effects of reduced clinician interobserver variation.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 92%
“…Development of NTCP models can be facilitated by generating agreement in dose constraint parameters, facilitated by a greater consistency in contouring the muscles of mastication. The reduction in variability in contouring the muscles of mastication may translate into a reduction in variability in reported dose to these structures [30]. It is beyond the scope of the present study however to determine the dosimetric effects of reduced clinician interobserver variation.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 92%
“…As stated by Vinod et al, an assessment of contouring variation based solely on geometry may have little to no clinical significance, especially where no correlations between contouring metrics and dosimetry have been performed. Additionally, commonly cited spatial overlap metrics conformity index and DSC have been shown to display only minimal to no significant correlations with dosimetry for non-small cell lung cancers (Jameson et al, 2014) and head and neck cancers (Beasley et al, 2016) respectively. As no study correlating contouring similarity metrics and dosimetry had been performed for prostate radiotherapy, this study was undertaken to bring clinical relevancy and allow insights into target volume and organ-at-risk dosimetry to other inter-observer contouring variation studies.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A combination of boundary and volume metrics is recommended (Fotina et al, 2012), however these metric choices may have little to no correlation with dosimetry. Studies investigating non-small cell lung cancers (Jameson et al, 2014) and head and neck cancers (Beasley et al, 2016) found that commonly utilised overlap metrics conformity index and DSC displayed weak or no correlations with simulated treatment outcome respectively. The aim of this study was to evaluate correlations between contouring similarity metrics and dosimetry for prostate cancer planned for VMAT radiotherapy.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Beasley et al [30] also reported that when measured with a suitable spatial metric, the higher the geometric accuracy of the contour, the smaller the dose difference should therefore be reflected, and vice versa. Our research showed that when the geometric index was within the acceptable threshold range, the corresponding dose difference can be clinically unacceptable, or when the geometric index was beyond the acceptable threshold range, the corresponding dose difference can be clinically Ex-D2% = D2% for expansion transformations; Re-D2% = D98% for reduction transformations; Sin-D2% = D2% for sine function transformations.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%