Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorMackay, K
dc.contributor.authorBernstein, D
dc.contributor.authorGlocker, B
dc.contributor.authorKamnitsas, K
dc.contributor.authorTaylor, A
dc.date.accessioned2023-02-02T12:56:11Z
dc.date.available2023-02-02T12:56:11Z
dc.date.issued2023-01-31
dc.identifier.citationClinical Oncology, 2023,
dc.identifier.issn0936-6555
dc.identifier.urihttps://repository.icr.ac.uk/handle/internal/5675
dc.identifier.doi10.1016/j.clon.2023.01.016
dc.description.abstractAuto-contouring could revolutionise future planning of radiotherapy treatment. The lack of consensus on how to assess and validate auto-contouring systems currently limits clinical use. This review formally quantifies the assessment metrics used in studies published during one calendar year and assesses the need for standardised practice. A PubMed literature search was undertaken for papers evaluating radiotherapy auto-contouring published during 2021. Papers were assessed for types of metric and the methodology used to generate ground-truth comparators. Our PubMed search identified 212 studies, of which 117 met the criteria for clinical review. Geometric assessment metrics were used in 116 of 117 studies (99.1%). This includes the Dice Similarity Coefficient used in 113 (96.6%) studies. Clinically relevant metrics, such as qualitative, dosimetric and time-saving metrics, were less frequently used in 22 (18.8%), 27 (23.1%) and 18 (15.4%) of 117 studies, respectively. There was heterogeneity within each category of metric. Over 90 different names for geometric measures were used. Methods for qualitative assessment were different in all but two papers. Variation existed in the methods used to generate radiotherapy plans for dosimetric assessment. Consideration of editing time was only given in 11 (9.4%) papers. A single manual contour as a ground-truth comparator was used in 65 (55.6%) studies. Only 31 (26.5%) studies compared auto-contours to usual inter- and/or intra-observer variation. In conclusion, significant variation exists in how research papers currently assess the accuracy of automatically generated contours. Geometric measures are the most popular, however their clinical utility is unknown. There is heterogeneity in the methods used to perform clinical assessment. Considering the different stages of system implementation may provide a framework to decide the most appropriate metrics. This analysis supports the need for a consensus on the clinical implementation of auto-contouring.
dc.languageen
dc.language.isoeng
dc.publisherELSEVIER SCIENCE LONDON
dc.relation.ispartofClinical Oncology
dc.rights.urihttp://www.rioxx.net/licenses/all-rights-reserved
dc.titleA Review of the Metrics Used to Assess Auto-Contouring Systems in Radiotherapy.
dc.typeJournal Article
dcterms.dateAccepted2023-01-23
dc.date.updated2023-02-02T12:48:33Z
rioxxterms.versionAM
rioxxterms.versionofrecord10.1016/j.clon.2023.01.016
rioxxterms.licenseref.startdate2023-01-01
rioxxterms.typeJournal Article/Review
pubs.organisational-group/ICR
pubs.publication-statusPublished
pubs.publisher-urlhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.clon.2023.01.016
dc.contributor.icrauthorMackay, Katherine
icr.provenanceDeposited by Katherine Mackay on 2023-02-02. Deposit type is initial. No. of files: 1. Files: Full manuscript for symplectic.pdf


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following collection(s)

Show simple item record