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
. 2022 Dec:177:61-70.
doi: 10.1016/j.radonc.2022.10.029. Epub 2022 Nov 1.

Comparison of atlas-based and deep learning methods for organs at risk delineation on head-and-neck CT images using an automated treatment planning system

Madalina Costea  1 , Alexandra Zlate  2 , Morgane Durand  3 , Thomas Baudier  1 , Vincent Grégoire  3 , David Sarrut  1 , Marie-Claude Biston  4
Affiliations

Comparison of atlas-based and deep learning methods for organs at risk delineation on head-and-neck CT images using an automated treatment planning system

Madalina Costea et al. Radiother Oncol. 2022 Dec.

Abstract

Background and purpose: To investigate the performance of head-and-neck (HN) organs-at-risk (OAR) automatic segmentation (AS) using four atlas-based (ABAS) and two deep learning (DL) solutions.

Material and methods: All patients underwent iodine contrast-enhanced planning CT. Fourteen OAR were manually delineated. DL.1 and DL.2 solutions were trained with 63 mono-centric patients and > 1000 multi-centric patients, respectively. Ten and 15 patients with varied anatomies were selected for the atlas library and for testing, respectively. The evaluation was based on geometric indices (DICE coefficient and 95th percentile-Hausdorff Distance (HD95%)), time needed for manual corrections and clinical dosimetric endpoints obtained using automated treatment planning.

Results: Both DICE and HD95% results indicated that DL algorithms generally performed better compared with ABAS algorithms for automatic segmentation of HN OAR. However, the hybrid-ABAS (ABAS.3) algorithm sometimes provided the highest agreement to the reference contours compared with the 2 DL. Compared with DL.2 and ABAS.3, DL.1 contours were the fastest to correct. For the 3 solutions, the differences in dose distributions obtained using AS contours and AS + manually corrected contours were not statistically significant. High dose differences could be observed when OAR contours were at short distances to the targets. However, this was not always interrelated.

Conclusion: DL methods generally showed higher delineation accuracy compared with ABAS methods for AS segmentation of HN OAR. Most ABAS contours had high conformity to the reference but were more time consuming than DL algorithms, especially when considering the computing time and the time spent on manual corrections.

Keywords: Atlas-based methods; Automatic contouring; Automatic planning; Deep-Learning methods; Head-and-Neck Cancer; Organs-at-risk.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: This work was performed in the framework of a research cooperation agreement with Elekta AB.

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

See all "Cited by" articles

Publication types

MeSH terms