Geometrical and dosimetric evaluation of breast target volume auto-contouring

Background and purpose: Automatic delineations are often used as a starting point in the radiotherapy contouring workflow, after which they are manually reviewed and adapted. The purpose of this work was to quantify the geometric differences between automatic and manually edited breast clinical targ...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Rita Simões, Geert Wortel, Terry G. Wiersma, Tomas M. Janssen, Uulke A. van der Heide, Peter Remeijer
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Elsevier 2019-10-01
Series:Physics and Imaging in Radiation Oncology
Online Access:http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2405631619300533
id doaj-47795a91fd2142028a144d5c87d53957
record_format Article
spelling doaj-47795a91fd2142028a144d5c87d539572020-11-24T21:23:15ZengElsevierPhysics and Imaging in Radiation Oncology2405-63162019-10-01123843Geometrical and dosimetric evaluation of breast target volume auto-contouringRita Simões0Geert Wortel1Terry G. Wiersma2Tomas M. Janssen3Uulke A. van der Heide4Peter Remeijer5Corresponding author at: Department of Radiation Oncology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Plesmanlaan 121, 1066 CX Amsterdam, The Netherlands.; Department of Radiation Oncology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The NetherlandsDepartment of Radiation Oncology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The NetherlandsDepartment of Radiation Oncology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The NetherlandsDepartment of Radiation Oncology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The NetherlandsDepartment of Radiation Oncology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The NetherlandsDepartment of Radiation Oncology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The NetherlandsBackground and purpose: Automatic delineations are often used as a starting point in the radiotherapy contouring workflow, after which they are manually reviewed and adapted. The purpose of this work was to quantify the geometric differences between automatic and manually edited breast clinical target volume (CTV) contours and evaluate the dosimetric impact of such differences. Materials and methods: Eighty-seven automatically generated and manually edited contours of the left breast were retrieved from our clinical database. The automatic contours were obtained with a commercial auto-segmentation toolbox. The geometrical comparison was performed both locally and globally using the Dice score and the 95% Hausdorff distance (HD). Two treatment plans were generated for each patient and the obtained dosimetric differences were quantified using dose-volume histogram (DVH) parameters in the lungs, heart and planning target volume (PTV). An inter-observer variability study with four observers was performed on a subset of ten patients. Results: A median Dice score of 0.95 and a median 95% HD of 9.7 mm were obtained. Larger breasts were consistently under-contoured. Cranial under-contouring resulted in more than 5% relative decrease in PTV coverage in 15% of the patients while lateroposterior over-contouring increased the lung V20Gy by a maximum of 2%. The inter-observer variability of the PTV coverage was smaller than the difference between PTV coverage achieved by the automatic and the consensus contours. Conclusions: Cranial under-contouring resulted in under-treatment, while lateroposterior over-contouring resulted in an increased lung dosage that is clinically irrelevant, showing the need to consider dose distributions to assess the clinical impact of local geometrical differences. Keywords: Auto-contouring, Contour comparison, Dosimetric differenceshttp://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2405631619300533
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Rita Simões
Geert Wortel
Terry G. Wiersma
Tomas M. Janssen
Uulke A. van der Heide
Peter Remeijer
spellingShingle Rita Simões
Geert Wortel
Terry G. Wiersma
Tomas M. Janssen
Uulke A. van der Heide
Peter Remeijer
Geometrical and dosimetric evaluation of breast target volume auto-contouring
Physics and Imaging in Radiation Oncology
author_facet Rita Simões
Geert Wortel
Terry G. Wiersma
Tomas M. Janssen
Uulke A. van der Heide
Peter Remeijer
author_sort Rita Simões
title Geometrical and dosimetric evaluation of breast target volume auto-contouring
title_short Geometrical and dosimetric evaluation of breast target volume auto-contouring
title_full Geometrical and dosimetric evaluation of breast target volume auto-contouring
title_fullStr Geometrical and dosimetric evaluation of breast target volume auto-contouring
title_full_unstemmed Geometrical and dosimetric evaluation of breast target volume auto-contouring
title_sort geometrical and dosimetric evaluation of breast target volume auto-contouring
publisher Elsevier
series Physics and Imaging in Radiation Oncology
issn 2405-6316
publishDate 2019-10-01
description Background and purpose: Automatic delineations are often used as a starting point in the radiotherapy contouring workflow, after which they are manually reviewed and adapted. The purpose of this work was to quantify the geometric differences between automatic and manually edited breast clinical target volume (CTV) contours and evaluate the dosimetric impact of such differences. Materials and methods: Eighty-seven automatically generated and manually edited contours of the left breast were retrieved from our clinical database. The automatic contours were obtained with a commercial auto-segmentation toolbox. The geometrical comparison was performed both locally and globally using the Dice score and the 95% Hausdorff distance (HD). Two treatment plans were generated for each patient and the obtained dosimetric differences were quantified using dose-volume histogram (DVH) parameters in the lungs, heart and planning target volume (PTV). An inter-observer variability study with four observers was performed on a subset of ten patients. Results: A median Dice score of 0.95 and a median 95% HD of 9.7 mm were obtained. Larger breasts were consistently under-contoured. Cranial under-contouring resulted in more than 5% relative decrease in PTV coverage in 15% of the patients while lateroposterior over-contouring increased the lung V20Gy by a maximum of 2%. The inter-observer variability of the PTV coverage was smaller than the difference between PTV coverage achieved by the automatic and the consensus contours. Conclusions: Cranial under-contouring resulted in under-treatment, while lateroposterior over-contouring resulted in an increased lung dosage that is clinically irrelevant, showing the need to consider dose distributions to assess the clinical impact of local geometrical differences. Keywords: Auto-contouring, Contour comparison, Dosimetric differences
url http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2405631619300533
work_keys_str_mv AT ritasimoes geometricalanddosimetricevaluationofbreasttargetvolumeautocontouring
AT geertwortel geometricalanddosimetricevaluationofbreasttargetvolumeautocontouring
AT terrygwiersma geometricalanddosimetricevaluationofbreasttargetvolumeautocontouring
AT tomasmjanssen geometricalanddosimetricevaluationofbreasttargetvolumeautocontouring
AT uulkeavanderheide geometricalanddosimetricevaluationofbreasttargetvolumeautocontouring
AT peterremeijer geometricalanddosimetricevaluationofbreasttargetvolumeautocontouring
_version_ 1725992596175585280