Report on AI-Infused Contouring Workflows for Adaptive Proton Therapy in the Head and Neck
Authors:
Nicolas F. Chaves-de-Plaza,
Prerak Mody,
Klaus Hildebrandt,
Marius Staring,
Eleftheria Astreinidou,
Mischa de Ridder,
Huib de Ridder,
Rene van Egmond
Abstract:
Delineation of tumors and organs-at-risk permits detecting and correcting changes in the patients' anatomy throughout the treatment, making it a core step of adaptive proton therapy (APT). Although AI-based auto-contouring technologies have sped up this process, the time needed to perform the quality assessment (QA) of the generated contours remains a bottleneck, taking clinicians between several…
▽ More
Delineation of tumors and organs-at-risk permits detecting and correcting changes in the patients' anatomy throughout the treatment, making it a core step of adaptive proton therapy (APT). Although AI-based auto-contouring technologies have sped up this process, the time needed to perform the quality assessment (QA) of the generated contours remains a bottleneck, taking clinicians between several minutes up to an hour to complete. This paper introduces a fast contouring workflow suitable for time-critical APT, enabling detection of anatomical changes in shorter time frames and with a lower demand of clinical resources. The proposed AI-infused workflow follows two principles uncovered after reviewing the APT literature and conducting several interviews and an observational study in two radiotherapy centers in the Netherlands. First, enable targeted inspection of the generated contours by leveraging AI uncertainty and clinically-relevant features such as the proximity of the organs-at-risk to the tumor. Second, minimize the number of interactions needed to edit faulty delineations with redundancy-aware editing tools that provide the user a sense of predictability and control. We use a proof of concept that we validated with clinicians to demonstrate how current and upcoming AI capabilities support the workflow and how it would fit into clinical practice.
△ Less
Submitted 5 September, 2022; v1 submitted 9 August, 2022;
originally announced August 2022.
Comparing Bayesian Models for Organ Contouring in Head and Neck Radiotherapy
Authors:
Prerak Mody,
Nicolas Chaves-de-Plaza,
Klaus Hildebrandt,
Rene van Egmond,
Huib de Ridder,
Marius Staring
Abstract:
Deep learning models for organ contouring in radiotherapy are poised for clinical usage, but currently, there exist few tools for automated quality assessment (QA) of the predicted contours. Using Bayesian models and their associated uncertainty, one can potentially automate the process of detecting inaccurate predictions. We investigate two Bayesian models for auto-contouring, DropOut and FlipOut…
▽ More
Deep learning models for organ contouring in radiotherapy are poised for clinical usage, but currently, there exist few tools for automated quality assessment (QA) of the predicted contours. Using Bayesian models and their associated uncertainty, one can potentially automate the process of detecting inaccurate predictions. We investigate two Bayesian models for auto-contouring, DropOut and FlipOut, using a quantitative measure - expected calibration error (ECE) and a qualitative measure - region-based accuracy-vs-uncertainty (R-AvU) graphs. It is well understood that a model should have low ECE to be considered trustworthy. However, in a QA context, a model should also have high uncertainty in inaccurate regions and low uncertainty in accurate regions. Such behaviour could direct visual attention of expert users to potentially inaccurate regions, leading to a speed up in the QA process. Using R-AvU graphs, we qualitatively compare the behaviour of different models in accurate and inaccurate regions. Experiments are conducted on the MICCAI2015 Head and Neck Segmentation Challenge and on the DeepMindTCIA CT dataset using three models: DropOut-DICE, Dropout-CE (Cross Entropy) and FlipOut-CE. Quantitative results show that DropOut-DICE has the highest ECE, while Dropout-CE and FlipOut-CE have the lowest ECE. To better understand the difference between DropOut-CE and FlipOut-CE, we use the R-AvU graph which shows that FlipOut-CE has better uncertainty coverage in inaccurate regions than DropOut-CE. Such a combination of quantitative and qualitative metrics explores a new approach that helps to select which model can be deployed as a QA tool in clinical settings.
△ Less
Submitted 3 February, 2022; v1 submitted 1 November, 2021;
originally announced November 2021.
