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
Review
. 2021 Jul:160:185-191.
doi: 10.1016/j.radonc.2021.05.003. Epub 2021 May 11.

Metrics to evaluate the performance of auto-segmentation for radiation treatment planning: A critical review

Affiliations
Review

Metrics to evaluate the performance of auto-segmentation for radiation treatment planning: A critical review

Michael V Sherer et al. Radiother Oncol. 2021 Jul.

Abstract

Advances in artificial intelligence-based methods have led to the development and publication of numerous systems for auto-segmentation in radiotherapy. These systems have the potential to decrease contour variability, which has been associated with poor clinical outcomes and increased efficiency in the treatment planning workflow. However, there are no uniform standards for evaluating auto-segmentation platforms to assess their efficacy at meeting these goals. Here, we review the most frequently used evaluation techniques which include geometric overlap, dosimetric parameters, time spent contouring, and clinical rating scales. These data suggest that many of the most commonly used geometric indices, such as the Dice Similarity Coefficient, are not well correlated with clinically meaningful endpoints. As such, a multi-domain evaluation, including composite geometric and/or dosimetric metrics with physician-reported assessment, is necessary to gauge the clinical readiness of auto-segmentation for radiation treatment planning.

Keywords: Auto-segmentation; Contouring; Quality assurance; Treatment planning.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Fig. 1.
Fig. 1.
Overview of metrics used for contour evaluation.
Fig. 2.
Fig. 2.
Examples of Geometric-Dosimetric discordance. On the left, two contours of the left anterior descending artery have almost no overlap but both structures receive a nearly identical dose (Figure reprinted with permission from reference [52]). On the right, two small bowel contours have excellent geometric agreement but disagreement within a high dose gradient region would result in a higher Dmax for the red contour.

References

    1. Boero IJ, Paravati AJ, Xu B, Cohen EEW, Mell LK, Le QT, et al. Importance of radiation oncologist experience among patients with head-and-neck cancer treated with intensity-modulated radiation therapy. J Clin Oncol 2016;34:684–90. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Dalah E, Moraru I, Paulson E, Erickson B, Li XA. Variability of target and normal structure delineation using multimodality imaging for radiation therapy of pancreatic cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2014;89:633–40. - PubMed
    1. Kachnic LA, Winter K, Myerson RJ, Goodyear MD, Willins J, Esthappan J, et al. RTOG 0529: a phase 2 evaluation of dose-painted intensity modulated radiation therapy in combination with 5-fluorouracil and mitomycin-C for the reduction of acute morbidity in carcinoma of the anal canal. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2013;86:27–33. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Berry SL, Boczkowski A, Ma R, Mechalakos J, Hunt M. Interobserver variability in radiation therapy plan output: results of a single-institution study. Pract Radiat Oncol 2016;6:442–9. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Segedin B, Petric P. Uncertainties in target volume delineation in radiotherapy - are they relevant and what can we do about them?. Radiol Oncol 2016;50:254–62. - PMC - PubMed

Publication types