Abstract
PURPOSE: The study's purpose was to compare the performance of artificial intelligence (AI) in auto-contouring compared with a human practitioner in terms of precision, differences in dose distribution, and time consumption. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Datasets of previously irradiated patients in 3 different segments (head and neck, breast, and prostate cancer) were retrospectively collected. An experienced radiation oncologist (MD) performed organs-at-risk (OARs) and standard clinical target volume delineations as baseline structures for comparison. AI-based autocontours were generated in 2 additional CT copies; therefore, 3 groups were assessed: MD alone, AI alone, and AI plus MD corrections (AI+C). Differences in Dice similarity coefficient (DSC) and person-hour burden were assessed. Furthermore, changes in clinically relevant dose-volume parameters were evaluated and compared. RESULTS: Seventy-five previously treated cases were collected (25 per segment) for the analysis. Compared with MD contours, the mean DSC scores were higher than 0.7 for 74% and 80% of AI and AI+C, respectively. After corrections, 17.1% structures presented DSC score deviations higher than 0.1 and 10.4% dose-volume parameters significantly changed in AI-contoured structures. The time consumption assessment yielded mean person-hour reductions of 68%, 51%, and 71% for breast, prostate, and head and neck cancer, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: In great extent, AI yielded clinically acceptable OARs and certain clinical target volumes in the explored anatomic segments. Sparse correction and assessment requirements place AI+C as a standard workflow. Minimal clinically relevant differences in OAR exposure were identified. A substantial amount of person-hours could be repurposed with this technology.