RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 “E Pluribus Unum”: Prospective acceptability benchmarking from the Contouring Collaborative for Consensus in Radiation Oncology (C3RO) Crowdsourced Initiative for Multi-Observer Segmentation
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2022.09.23.22280295
DO 10.1101/2022.09.23.22280295
A1 Lin, Diana
A1 Wahid, Kareem A.
A1 Nelms, Benjamin E.
A1 He, Renjie
A1 Naser, Mohammed A.
A1 Duke, Simon
A1 Sherer, Michael V.
A1 Christodouleas, John P.
A1 Mohamed, Abdallah S. R.
A1 Cislo, Michael
A1 Murphy, James D.
A1 Fuller, Clifton D.
A1 Gillespie, Erin F.
YR 2022
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2022/09/27/2022.09.23.22280295.abstract
AB OBJECTIVE Contouring Collaborative for Consensus in Radiation Oncology (C3RO) is a crowdsourced challenge engaging radiation oncologists across various expertise levels in segmentation. A challenge in artificial intelligence (AI) development is the paucity of multi-expert datasets; consequently, we sought to characterize whether aggregate segmentations generated from multiple non-experts could meet or exceed recognized expert agreement.MATERIALS AND METHODS Participants who contoured ≥1 region of interest (ROI) for the breast, sarcoma, head and neck (H&N), gynecologic (GYN), or gastrointestinal (GI) challenge were identified as a non-expert or recognized expert. Cohort-specific ROIs were combined into single simultaneous truth and performance level estimation (STAPLE) consensus segmentations. STAPLEnon-expert ROIs were evaluated against STAPLEexpert contours using Dice Similarity Coefficient (DSC). The expert interobserver DSC (IODSCexpert) was calculated as an acceptability threshold between STAPLEnon-expert and STAPLEexpert. To determine the number of non-experts required to match the IODSCexpert for each ROI, a single consensus contour was generated using variable numbers of non-experts and then compared to the IODSCexpert.RESULTS For all cases, the DSC for STAPLEnon-expert versus STAPLEexpert were higher than comparator expert IODSCexpert for most ROIs. The minimum number of non-expert segmentations needed for a consensus ROI to achieve IODSCexpert acceptability criteria ranged between 2-4 for breast, 3-5 for sarcoma, 3-5 for H&N, 3-5 for GYN ROIs, and 3 for GI ROIs.DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION Multiple non-expert-generated consensus ROIs met or exceeded expert-derived acceptability thresholds. 5 non-experts could potentially generate consensus segmentations for most ROIs with performance approximating experts, suggesting non-expert segmentations as feasible cost-effective AI inputs.Competing Interest StatementE.F.G. is a co-founder of the educational website eContour.org. D.L. is in a research fellowship funded by grants for research and education related to eContour.org. C.D.F. has received direct industry grant support, speaking honoraria, and travel funding from Elekta AB. The other authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose.Funding StatementThis work was supported by the National Institutes of Health (NIH)/National Cancer Institute (NCI) through a Cancer Center Support Grant (CCSG; P30CA016672-44; P30CA008748). D.L. is supported by the Radiological Society of North America (RSNA) Research Medical Student Grant (RMS2116). K.A.W. is supported by the Dr. John J. Kopchick Fellowship through The University of Texas MD Anderson UTHealth Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences, the American Legion Auxiliary Fellowship in Cancer Research, and an NIH/National Institute for Dental and Craniofacial Research (NIDCR) F31 fellowship (1 F31DE031502-01). E.F.G. and J.D.M. received funding from the Agency for Health Research and Quality (AHRQ R18HS026881). C.D.F. received funding from the NIH/NIDCR (1R01DE025248-01/R56DE025248); an NIH/NIDCR Academic-Industrial Partnership Award (R01DE028290); 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 NCI Early Stage Development of Technologies in Biomedical Computing, Informatics, and Big Data Science Award (1R01CA214825); the NCI Early Phase Clinical Trials in Imaging and Image-Guided Interventions Program (1R01CA218148); an NIH/NCI Pilot Research Program Award from the UT MD Anderson CCSG Radiation Oncology and Cancer Imaging Program (P30CA016672); an NIH/NCI Head and Neck Specialized Programs of Research Excellence (SPORE) Developmental Research Program Award (P50CA097007); and the National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering (NIBIB) Research Education Program (R25EB025787).Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:This study was approved by the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center Institutional Review Board (IRB#: X19-040 A(1); approval date: May 26, 2021).I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.YesI 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).YesI 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.YesAnonymized data used in our analysis are made publicly available on Figshare, doi: 10.6084/m9.figshare.21074182 (private until manuscript acceptance).