ESTRO 2020 Abstract book

S1002 ESTRO 2020

muscles requiring >50% manual edits.

PO-1719 Clinical evaluation of deep learning auto- contouring in prostate and head and neck cancer. C. Hague 1 , W. Beasley 2 , A. McPartlin 1 , S. Owens 2 , G. Price 2 , H. Saud 2 , N. Slevin 1 , M. Van Herk 3 , P. Whitehurst 2 , R. Chuter 2,4 1 The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Clinical Oncology, Manchester, United Kingdom ; 2 The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Christie Medical Physics and Engineering, Manchester, United Kingdom ; 3 The University of Manchester, Division of Cancer Sciences, Manchester, United Kingdom ; 4 University of Manchester, Division of Cancer Sciences, Manchester, United Kingdom Purpose or Objective Manually contouring organs at risk (OARs) is time consuming and affected by inter-observer variability. As the complexity and number of OARs increases the role of auto-contouring to standardise delineation and reduce clinician workload becomes increasingly important. The aim of this study was to evaluate the ability of deep- learning based auto-contouring to produce clinically acceptable OAR contours. Material and Methods Two Head and Neck (H&N) models, A and B trained on local data and two “generic” models trained on data from other centres (one H&N and one prostate model) were evaluated. OAR contours from ten randomly selected H&N patients and nine prostate patients were reviewed. Auto- contours (DLC Expert™, Mirada Medical) were reviewed by two independent observers and scored from 1-7 according to a ‘goodness of fit’ descriptive category. Scores of 5 (“requiring 20-50% manual edits to meet clinical standards”) or less were defined as acceptable. To compare contours generated by the four models with manual contours distances to agreement (DTA) were calculated. For the prostate model, median, minimum and maximum time required for manual contouring was recorded and compared with the time required to edit to DLC-expert generated contours. Results Manual editing of contours generated by the DLC-expert model saved time compared with full manual contouring for all prostate OARs, and in particular the bladder (Table 1). Average goodness-of-fit scores were similar between the two independent observers as shown in Table 2. The generic model met clinical standards for the mandible, oral cavity, brainstem and left submandibular gland and outperformed models A and B, in particular for left and right submandibular glands (3.9 vs 12.1 mm and 3.1 vs 3.8 mm DTA). However for brainstem, spinal cord, larynx, bilateral parotid glands and eyes, local models A and B performed better (e.g. 2.8 vs 4.2 mm for brainstem and 6.6 vs 11.5 mm for spinal cord). Irrespective of the model, contours generated were not clinically acceptable for the optic chiasm, optic nerves and pharyngeal constrictor

Conclusion A “generic” deep learning model has been shown to aid the clinical workflow by reducing the time taken to delineate OARs for prostate patients. Auto-contouring for small, poorly visualised structures on CT such as the optic apparatus, however, has poor performance. The integration of MR in the contouring of such structures may be a solution but this remains to be validated. For H&N the DTA and clinical acceptability showed that contours from a mixture of local and generic models would potentially give clinically acceptable contours. Standard models can be very useful if they match internal contouring guidelines. Clinical evaluation of these and other models is ongoing within the centre.