Abstract
Purpose In order to accurately accumulate delivered dose for head and neck cancer patients treated with the Adapt to Position workflow on the 1.5T magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-linear accelerator (MR-linac), the low-resolution T2-weighted MRIs used for daily setup must be segmented to enable reconstruction of the delivered dose at each fraction. In this study, our goal is to evaluate various autosegmentation methods for head and neck organs at risk (OARs) on on-board setup MRIs from the MR-linac for off-line reconstruction of delivered dose.
Methods Seven OARs (parotid glands, submandibular glands, mandible, spinal cord, and brainstem) were contoured on 43 images by seven observers each. Ground truth contours were generated using a simultaneous truth and performance level estimation (STAPLE) algorithm. 20 autosegmentation methods were evaluated in ADMIRE: 1-9) atlas-based autosegmentation using a population atlas library (PAL) of 5/10/15 patients with STAPLE, patch fusion (PF), random forest (RF) for label fusion; 10-19) autosegmentation using images from a patient’s 1-4 prior fractions (individualized patient prior (IPP)) using STAPLE/PF/RF; 20) deep learning (DL) (3D ResUNet trained on 43 ground truth structure sets plus 45 contoured by one observer). Execution time was measured for each method. Autosegmented structures were compared to ground truth structures using the Dice similarity coefficient, mean surface distance, Hausdorff distance, and Jaccard index. For each metric and OAR, performance was compared to the inter-observer variability using Dunn’s test with control. Methods were compared pairwise using the Steel-Dwass test for each metric pooled across all OARs. Further dosimetric analysis was performed on three high-performing autosegmentation methods (DL, IPP with RF and 4 fractions (IPP_RF_4), IPP with 1 fraction (IPP_1)), and one low-performing (PAL with STAPLE and 5 atlases (PAL_ST_5)). For five patients, delivered doses from clinical plans were recalculated on setup images with ground truth and autosegmented structure sets. Differences in maximum and mean dose to each structure between the ground truth and autosegmented structures were calculated and correlated with geometric metrics.
Results DL and IPP methods performed best overall, all significantly outperforming inter-observer variability and with no significant difference between methods in pairwise comparison. PAL methods performed worst overall; most were not significantly different from the inter-observer variability or from each other. DL was the fastest method (33 seconds per case) and PAL methods the slowest (3.7 – 13.8 minutes per case). Execution time increased with number of prior fractions/atlases for IPP and PAL. For DL, IPP_1, and IPP_RF_4, the majority (95%) of dose differences were within ±250 cGy from ground truth, but outlier differences up to 785 cGy occurred. Dose differences were much higher for PAL_ST_5, with outlier differences up to 1920 cGy. Dose differences showed weak but significant correlations with all geometric metrics (R2 between 0.030 and 0.314).
Conclusions The autosegmentation methods offering the best combination of performance and execution time are DL and IPP_1. Dose reconstruction on on-board T2-weighted MRIs is feasible with autosegmented structures with minimal dosimetric variation from ground truth, but contours should be visually inspected prior to dose reconstruction in an end-to-end dose accumulation workflow.
Competing Interest Statement
This work was funded in part through an NIH-funded academic-industrial partnership R01 grant between MD Anderson Cancer Center, Elekta AB, and Philips Healthcare. N. O'Connell, J. Xu, D. Thill, and J. Christodouleas are employees of Elekta AB who contributed to this project through this externally funded collaboration. C.D. Fuller has received direct industry grant support, speaking honoraria, and travel funding from Elekta AB unrelated to the current work. B.A. McDonald has received speaking honoraria and travel funding from Elekta AB unrelated to the current work.
Clinical Trial
NCT04075305
Funding Statement
B.A. McDonald receives research support from an NIH NIDCR Award (F31DE029093) and the Dr. John J. Kopchick Fellowship through The University of Texas MD Anderson UTHealth Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences. K.A. Wahid is supported by a training fellowship from The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston Center for Clinical and Translational Sciences TL1 Program (TL1TR003169), the American Legion Auxiliary Fellowship in Cancer Research, and a NIDCR F31 fellowship (1 F31 DE031502-01). C.D. Fuller received funding from an NIH NIDCR Award (1R01 DE025248-01/R56 DE025248) and Academic-Industrial Partnership Award (R01 DE028290); the National Science Foundation (NSF), Division of Mathematical Sciences, Joint NIH/NSF Initiative on Quantitative Approaches to Biomedical Big Data (QuBBD) Grant (NSF 1557679); the NIH Big Data to Knowledge (BD2K) Program of the National Cancer Institute (NCI) Early Stage Development of Technologies in Biomedical Computing, Informatics, and Big Data Science Award (1R01 CA214825); the NCI Early Phase Clinical Trials in Imaging and Image-Guided Interventions Program (1R01 CA218148); the NIH/NCI Cancer Center Support Grant (CCSG) Pilot Research Program Award from the UT MD Anderson CCSG Radiation Oncology and Cancer Imaging Program (P30 CA016672); the NIH/NCI Head and Neck Specialized Programs of Research Excellence (SPORE) Developmental Research Program Award (P50 CA097007); and the National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering (NIBIB) Research Education Program (R25 EB025787).
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
All patients provided written informed consent to participate in the IRB-approved MOMENTUM observational clinical trial (National Clinical Trial Identifier: NCT04075305; MD Anderson Cancer Center IRB study ID: PA18-0341), and all healthy volunteers provided written informed consent to participate in an internal IRB-approved volunteer imaging study (MD Anderson Cancer Center IRB study ID: PA14-1002).
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
At the time of submission, data is currently being curated to upload to a public data repository.
