A clinical and time savings evaluation of a deep learning automatic contouring algorithm.

Automatic contouring algorithms may streamline clinical workflows by reducing normal organ-at-risk (OAR) contouring time. Here we report the first comprehensive quantitative and qualitative evaluation, along with time savings assessment for a prototype deep learning segmentation algorithm from Siemens Healthineers. The accuracy of contours generated by the prototype were evaluated quantitatively using the Sorensen-Dice coefficient (Dice), Jaccard index (JC), and Hausdorff distance (Haus). Normal pelvic and head and neck OAR contours were evaluated retrospectively comparing the automatic and manual clinical contours in 100 patient cases. Contouring performance outliers were investigated. To quantify the time savings, a certified medical dosimetrist manually contoured de novo and, separately, edited the generated OARs for 10 head and neck and 10 pelvic patients. The automatic, edited, and manually generated contours were visually evaluated and scored by a practicing radiation oncologist on a scale of 1-4, where a higher score indicated better performance. The quantitative comparison revealed high (> 0.8) Dice and JC performance for relatively large organs such as the lungs, brain, femurs, and kidneys. Smaller elongated structures that had relatively low Dice and JC values tended to have low Hausdorff distances. Poor performing outlier cases revealed common anatomical inconsistencies including overestimation of the bladder and incorrect superior-inferior truncation of the spinal cord and femur contours. In all cases, editing contours was faster than manual contouring with an average time saving of 43.4% or 11.8 minutes per patient. The physician scored 240 structures with > 95% of structures receiving a score of 3 or 4. Of the structures reviewed, only 11 structures needed major revision or to be redone entirely. Our results indicate the evaluated auto-contouring solution has the potential to reduce clinical contouring time. The algorithm's performance is promising, but human review and some editing is required prior to clinical use.

Duke Scholars

Author John Stephen Ginn Radiation Oncology