Search

Background and Objectives: Bio-medical image segmentation models typically attempt to predict one segmentation that resembles a ground-truth structure as closely as possible. However, as medical images are not perfect representations of anatomy, obtaining this ground truth is not possible. A surrogate commonly used is to have multiple expert observers define the same structure for a dataset. When multiple observers define the same structure on the same image there can be significant differences depending on the structure, image quality/modality and the region being defined. It is often desirable to estimate this type of aleatoric uncertainty in a segmentation model to help understand the region in which the true structure is likely to be positioned. Furthermore, obtaining these datasets is resource intensive so training such models using limited data may be required. With a small dataset size, differing patient anatomy is likely not well represented causing epistemic uncertainty which should also be estimated so it can be determined for which cases the model is effective or not., Methods: We use a 3D probabilistic U-Net to train a model from which several segmentations can be sampled to estimate the range of uncertainty seen between multiple observers. To ensure that regions where observers disagree most are emphasised in model training, we expand the Generalised Evidence Lower Bound (ELBO) with a Constrained Optimisation (GECO) loss function with an additional contour loss term to give attention to this region. Ensemble and Monte-Carlo dropout (MCDO) uncertainty quantification methods are used during inference to estimate model confidence on an unseen case. We apply our methodology to two radiotherapy clinical trial datasets, a gastric cancer trial (TOPGEAR, TROG 08.08) and a post-prostatectomy prostate cancer trial (RAVES, TROG 08.03). Each dataset contains only 10 cases each for model development to segment the clinical target volume (CTV) which was defined by multiple observers on each case. An additional 50 cases are available as a hold-out dataset for each trial which had only one observer define the CTV structure on each case. Up to 50 samples were generated using the probabilistic model for each case in the hold-out dataset. To assess performance, each manually defined structure was matched to the closest matching sampled segmentation based on commonly used metrics., Results: The TOPGEAR CTV model achieved a Dice Similarity Coefficient (DSC) and Surface DSC (sDSC) of 0.7 and 0.43 respectively with the RAVES model achieving 0.75 and 0.71 respectively. Segmentation quality across cases in the hold-out datasets was variable however both the ensemble and MCDO uncertainty estimation approaches were able to accurately estimate model confidence with a p-value < 0.001 for both TOPGEAR and RAVES when comparing the DSC using the Pearson correlation coefficient., Conclusions: We demonstrated that training auto-segmentation models which can estimate aleatoric and epistemic uncertainty using limited datasets is possible. Having the model estimate prediction confidence is important to understand for which unseen cases a model is likely to be useful., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Accurate delineation of the proximal bronchial tree (PBT) is crucial for appropriate assessment of lung tumor centrality and choice of Stereotactic Ablative Body Radiotherapy (SABR) dose prescription. Here, we investigate variabilities in manual PBT delineation and their potential to influence assessing lesion centrality. A fully automatic, intensity-based tool for PBT contouring and measuring distance to the target is also described. This retrospective analysis included a total of 61 patients treated with lung SABR. A subset of 41 patients was used as a training dataset, containing clinical PBT contour and additional subsequently generated manual contours. The tool was optimized and compared against manual contours in terms of volume, distance to the target and various overlap/similarity metrics. The remaining 20 patients were used as a validation dataset to investigate the dosimetric effects of variations between manual and automatic PBT contours. Considerable interobserver variability was observed, particularly in identifying the superior and inferior borders of the PBT. Automatic PBT contours were comparable to manual contours with average Dice of 0.63 to 0.79 and mean distance to agreement of 1.78 to 3.34 mm. No significant differences in dosimetric parameters were found between automatically and manually generated contours. A moderate negative correlation was found between PBT maximum dose and distance to the lesion (p < 0.05). Variability in manual PBT delineation may result in inconsistent assessment of tumor centrality. Automatic contouring can help standardize clinical practice, support investigations into the link between SABR outcomes and lesion proximity to central airways and the development of predictive toxicity models that incorporate precise measurements of tumor location in relation to high-risk organs., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest None., (Copyright © 2020 American Association of Medical Dosimetrists. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)