Background and purpose: Retrospective dose evaluation for organ-at-risk auto-contours has previously used small cohorts due to additional manual effort required for treatment planning on auto-contours. We aimed to do this at large scale, by a) proposing and assessing an automated plan optimization workflow that used existing clinical plan parameters and b) using it for head-and-neck auto-contour dose evaluation. Materials and methods: Our automated workflow emulated our clinic's treatment planning protocol and reused existing clinical plan optimization parameters. This workflow recreated the original clinical plan (P_OG) with manual contours (P_MC) and evaluated the dose effect (P_OG-P_MC) on 70 photon and 30 proton plans of head-and-neck patients. As a use-case, the same workflow (and parameters) created a plan using auto-contours (P_AC) of eight head-and-neck organs-at-risk from a commercial tool and evaluated their dose effect (P_MC-P_AC). Results: For plan recreation (P_OG-P_MC), our workflow had a median impact of 1.0% and 1.5% across dose metrics of auto-contours, for photon and proton respectively. Computer time of automated planning was 25% (photon) and 42% (proton) of manual planning time. For auto-contour evaluation (P_MC-P_AC), we noticed an impact of 2.0% and 2.6% for photon and proton radiotherapy. All evaluations had a median ΔNTCP (Normal Tissue Complication Probability) less than 0.3%. Conclusions: The plan replication capability of our automated program provides a blueprint for other clinics to perform auto-contour dose evaluation with large patient cohorts. Finally, despite geometric differences, auto-contours had a minimal median dose impact, hence inspiring confidence in their utility and facilitating their clinical adoption.

@en

Artificial Intelligence (AI)-based auto-delineation technologies rapidly delineate multiple structures of interest like organs-at-risk and tumors in 3D medical images, reducing personnel load and facilitating time-critical therapies. Despite its accuracy, the AI may produce flawed delineations, requiring clinician attention. Quality assessment (QA) of these delineations is laborious and demanding. Delineation error detection systems (DEDS) aim to aid QA, yet questions linger about potential challenges to their adoption and time-saving potential. To address these queries, we first conducted a user study with two clinicians from Holland Proton Therapy Center, a Dutch cancer treatment center. Based on the study’s findings about the clinicians’ error detection workflows with and without DEDS assistance, we developed a simulation model of the QA process, which we used to assess different error detection workflows on a retrospective cohort of 42 head and neck cancer patients. Results suggest possible time savings, provided the per-slice analysis time stays close to the current baseline and trading-off delineation quality is acceptable. Our findings encourage the development of user-centric delineation error detection systems and provide a new way to model and evaluate these systems’ potential clinical value.@en

Artificial Intelligence (AI)-based auto-delineation technologies rapidly delineate multiple structures of interest like organs-at-risk and tumors in 3D medical images, reducing personnel load and facilitating time-critical therapies. Despite its accuracy, the AI may produce flawed delineations, requiring clinician attention. Quality assessment (QA) of these delineations is laborious and demanding. Delineation error detection systems aim to aid QA, yet questions linger about clinician adoption, challenges, and time-saving potential. In this study, we address these queries in two stages. First, we investigate the error detection workflow of a radiotherapy technologist and a radiation oncologist from Holland Proton Therapy Center, a Dutch cancer treatment center. The user study revealed which information sources clinicians prefer to use for the error prioritization task and elucidated clinicians' slice-based navigation workflows with and without system assistance. Based on the findings from the user study, we developed a simulation model of the QA process, which we used to assess different error detection workflows on a retrospective cohort of 42 head and neck cancer patients. The simulation study results indicate potential time savings through error and dose information, contingent on per-slice analysis time remaining near the current baseline. Our findings encourage the development of user-centric delineation error detection systems and provide a new way to model and evaluate these systems' potential clinical value.@en

Delineation of tumours and organs-at-risk permits detecting and correcting changes in the patients' anatomy throughout the treatment, making it a core step of adaptive external beam radiotherapy. Although auto-contouring technologies have sped up this process, the time needed to perform the quality assessment of the generated contours remains a bottleneck, taking clinicians between several minutes and an hour to complete. The authors of this article conducted several interviews and an observational study at two treatment centres in the Netherlands to identify challenges and opportunities for speeding up the delineation process in adaptive therapies. The study revealed three contextual variables that influence contouring performance: usable additional information, applicable domain-specific knowledge, and available editing capabilities in contouring software. In practice, clinicians leverage these variables to accelerate contouring in two ways. First, they use domain-specific knowledge and relevant clinical features such as the proximity of the organs-at-risk to the tumour to enable targeted inspection of the delineation. Second, clinicians modulate editing precision depending on the effect they anticipate the edit will have on the patient outcome. By implementing these acceleration strategies in guidelines and contouring tools, developers and workflow builders could increase contouring efficiency and consistency without affecting the patient outcome.@en