Search

This study aimed to determine the relationship between geometric and dosimetric agreement metrics in head and neck (H&N) cancer radiotherapy plans. A total 287 plans were retrospectively analyzed, comparing auto-contoured and clinically used contours using a Dice similarity coefficient (DSC), surface DSC (sDSC), and Hausdorff distance (HD). Organs-at-risk (OARs) with ≥200 cGy dose differences from the clinical contour in terms of Dmax (D0.01cc) and Dmean were further examined against proximity to the planning target volume (PTV). A secondary set of 91 plans from multiple institutions validated these findings. For 4995 contour pairs across 19 OARs, 90% had a DSC, sDSC, and HD of at least 0.75, 0.86, and less than 7.65 mm, respectively. Dosimetrically, the absolute difference between the two contour sets was <200 cGy for 95% of OARs in terms of Dmax and 96% in terms of Dmean. In total, 97% of OARs exhibiting significant dose differences between the clinically edited contour and auto-contour were within 2.5 cm PTV regardless of geometric agreement. There was an approximately linear trend between geometric agreement and identifying at least 200 cGy dose differences, with higher geometric agreement corresponding to a lower fraction of cases being identified. Analysis of the secondary dataset validated these findings. Geometric indices are approximate indicators of contour quality and identify contours exhibiting significant dosimetric discordance. For a small subset of OARs within 2.5 cm of the PTV, geometric agreement metrics can be misleading in terms of contour quality. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Developers and users of artificial-intelligence-based tools for automatic contouring and treatment planning in radiotherapy are expected to assess clinical acceptability of these tools. However, what is 'clinical acceptability'? Quantitative and qualitative approaches have been used to assess this ill-defined concept, all of which have advantages and disadvantages or limitations. The approach chosen may depend on the goal of the study as well as on available resources. In this paper, we discuss various aspects of 'clinical acceptability' and how they can move us toward a standard for defining clinical acceptability of new autocontouring and planning tools. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]