Journal of Clinical & Experimental OncologyISSN: 2324-9110

Reach Us +1 850 900 2634
All submissions of the EM system will be redirected to Online Manuscript Submission System. Authors are requested to submit articles directly to Online Manuscript Submission System of respective journal.

Research Article, J Clin Exp Oncol Vol: 4 Issue: 2

Evaluation of Automatic and Manual Contouring of Cranial Structures

Vadim Y Kuperman1*, Kouskoulas TN2, Battle JA2, Brad A Factor2, Charles D Hechtman2, Oscar F Carbonell3, Miles DT3, Lubich LM4, Mendoza AS2 and Page DB5
1Department of Radiation Oncology, Florida Hospital, Tampa, FL 33613, USA
2Department of Radiation Oncology, Halifax Health, Daytona Beach, FL 32114, USA
3Department of Radiology, Halifax Health, Daytona Beach, FL 32114, USA
4Medical Physics Support, Tampa, FL 33634, USA
5Florida State University, College of Medicine, Tallahassee, FL 32304, USA
Corresponding author : Vadim Y Kuperman, PhD
Department of Radiation Oncology, Florida Hospital 3100 E. Fletcher Avenue, Tampa, FL, 33613, USA
Tel: (813) 300-0514; Fax: (813) 615-7409
E-mail: [email protected]
Received April 07, 2015 Accepted August 06, 2015 Published August 11, 2015
Citation: Kuperman VY, Kouskoulas TN, Battle JA, Factor BA, Hechtman CD, et al. (2015) Evaluation of Automatic and Manual Contouring of Cranial Structures. J Clin Exp Oncol 4:3. doi:10.4172/2324-9110.1000141

Abstract

Evaluation of Automatic and Manual Contouring of Cranial Structures

Objective:

This study evaluates automatic and manual segmentations of cranial structures in iPlan treatment planning system (Brainlab, Munich, Germany).

Methods:

For the analysis of the automatic segmentation algorithm in iPlan, delineations of cranial structures including brainstem, optic nerves, optic chiasm, eyes and eye lenses were analyzed for ten patients with brain metastasis. Five participating radiation oncologists contoured the same structures manually on axial slices of T1-weighted MR scans of the head. The automatic and manual delineations of the cranial structures were compared by using the following quantitative measures: Dice similarity coefficient, differences in the structures’ volumes and positions of the center of mass.

Results:

The comparison of the automatically generated contours and those produced by clinicians, and inter-comparison between clinicians’ delineations indicate relatively good agreement for the brainstem and eyes but unsatisfactory agreement for other structures.

Conclusions:

The obtained results indicate the need for careful verification of the automatically segmented structures in the iPlan treatment planning system. The observed variability between the delineations by different clinicians is of concern. One possible remedy is to utilize expansion margins for the critical cranial structures during treatment planning.

Keywords: Automatic and manual contouring; Cranial structures; Intervariability; Treatment planning systems

Track Your Manuscript

Share This Page

Media Partners