Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2021 May;22(5):168-174.
doi: 10.1002/acm2.13207. Epub 2021 Mar 29.

Impact of slice thickness, pixel size, and CT dose on the performance of automatic contouring algorithms

Affiliations

Impact of slice thickness, pixel size, and CT dose on the performance of automatic contouring algorithms

Kai Huang et al. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2021 May.

Abstract

Purpose: To investigate the impact of computed tomography (CT) image acquisition and reconstruction parameters, including slice thickness, pixel size, and dose, on automatic contouring algorithms.

Methods: Eleven scans from patients with head-and-neck cancer were reconstructed with varying slice thicknesses and pixel sizes. CT dose was varied by adding noise using low-dose simulation software. The impact of these imaging parameters on two in-house auto-contouring algorithms, one convolutional neural network (CNN)-based and one multiatlas-based system (MACS) was investigated for 183 reconstructed scans. For each algorithm, auto-contours for organs-at-risk were compared with auto-contours from scans with 3 mm slice thickness, 0.977 mm pixel size, and 100% CT dose using Dice similarity coefficient (DSC), Hausdorff distance (HD), and mean surface distance (MSD).

Results: Increasing the slice thickness from baseline value of 3 mm gave a progressive reduction in DSC and an increase in HD and MSD on average for all structures. Reducing the CT dose only had a relatively minimal effect on DSC and HD. The rate of change with respect to dose for both auto-contouring methods is approximately 0. Changes in pixel size had a small effect on DSC and HD for CNN-based auto-contouring with differences in DSC being within 0.07. Small structures had larger deviations from the baseline values than large structures for DSC. The relative differences in HD and MSD between the large and small structures were small.

Conclusions: Auto-contours can deviate substantially with changes in CT acquisition and reconstruction parameters, especially slice thickness and pixel size. The CNN was less sensitive to changes in pixel size, and dose levels than the MACS. The results contraindicated more restrictive values for the parameters should be used than a typical imaging protocol for head-and-neck.

Keywords: CT parameters; atlas-based segmentation; auto-contouring; convolutional neural network.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Other aspects of the Radiation Planning Assistant project are funded by Varian Medical Systems.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Comparison of DSC, MSD, and HD for the auto‐contours produced for varying slice thickness and those from a control of slice thickness of 3 mm. Figure parts (a) and (d) show the average values of all patients and structures. Figure parts (b) and (e) show the average values of all patients and large structures. Figure parts (c) and (f) show the average values of all patients and small structures. Large structures included the brain, brainstem, spinal cord, left and right eyes, mandible, and left and right parotid glands, and small structures included the left and right cochlea, esophagus, optic chiasm, left and right lenses, left and right optic nerves.
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Comparison of DSC, MSD, and HD for the auto‐contours produced for varying pixel thickness and those from a control of pixel thickness 0.977 mm. Figure parts (a) and (d) show the average values of all patients and structures. Figure parts (b) and (e) show the average values of all patients and large structures. Figure parts (c) and (f) show the average values of all patients and small structures. Large structures included the brain, brainstem, spinal cord, left and right eyes, mandible, and left and right parotid glands, and small structures included the left and right cochlea, esophagus, optic chiasm, left and right lenses, left and right optic nerves.
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Comparison of DSC, MSD, and HD for the auto‐contours produced for varying dose and those from a control of 100% of original dose. Figure parts (a) and (d) show the average values of all patients and structures. Figure parts (b) and (e) show the average values of all patients and large structures. Figure parts (c) and (f) show the average values of all patients and small structures. Large structures included the brain, brainstem, spinal cord, left and right eyes, mandible, and left and right parotid glands, and small structures included the left and right cochlea, esophagus, optic chiasm, left and right lenses, left and right optic nerves.

References

    1. Fiorino C, Reni M, Bolognesi A, Cattaneo GM, Calandrino R. Intra‐ and inter‐observer variability in contouring prostate and seminal vesicles: implications for conformal treatment planning. Radiother Oncol. 1998;47:285–292. - PubMed
    1. Collier DC, Burnett SSC, Amin M, et al. Assessment of consistency in contouring of normal‐tissue anatomic structures. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2003;4:17–24. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Klein EE, Hanley J, Bayouth J, et al. Task Group 142 report: quality assurance of medical accelerators. Med Phys. 2009;36:4197–4212. - PubMed
    1. Teguh DN, Levendag PC, Voet PWJ, et al. Clinical validation of atlas‐based auto‐segmentation of multiple target volumes and normal tissue (swallowing/mastication) structures in the head and neck. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2011;81:950–957. - PubMed
    1. Cardenas CE, Yang J, Anderson BM, Court LE, Brock KB. Advances in auto‐segmentation. Semin Radiat Oncol. 2019;29:185–197. - PubMed