Automated Contouring and Planning in Radiation Therapy: What Is ‘Clinically Acceptable’?

Hana Baroudi; Kristy K. Brock; Wenhua Cao; Xinru Chen; Caroline Chung; Laurence E. Court; Mohammad D. El Basha; Maguy Farhat; Skylar Gay; Mary P. Gronberg; Aashish Chandra Gupta; Soleil Hernandez; Kai Huang; David A. Jaffray; Rebecca Lim; Barbara Marquez; Kelly Nealon; Tucker J. Netherton; Callistus M. Nguyen; Brandon Reber; Dong Joo Rhee; Ramon M. Salazar; Mihir D. Shanker; Carlos Sjogreen; McKell Woodland; Jinzhong Yang; Cenji Yu; Yao Zhao

doi:10.3390/diagnostics13040667

Automated Contouring and Planning in Radiation Therapy: What Is ‘Clinically Acceptable’?

Hana Baroudi, Kristy K. Brock, Wenhua Cao, Xinru Chen, Caroline Chung, Laurence E. Court, Mohammad D. El Basha, Maguy Farhat, Skylar Gay, Mary P. Gronberg, Aashish Chandra Gupta, Soleil Hernandez, Kai Huang, David A. Jaffray, Rebecca Lim, Barbara Marquez, Kelly Nealon, Tucker J. Netherton, Callistus M. Nguyen, Brandon ReberDong Joo Rhee, Ramon M. Salazar, Mihir D. Shanker, Carlos Sjogreen, McKell Woodland, Jinzhong Yang, Cenji Yu, Yao Zhao

Research output: Contribution to journal › Review article › peer-review

13 Scopus citations

Abstract

Developers and users of artificial-intelligence-based tools for automatic contouring and treatment planning in radiotherapy are expected to assess clinical acceptability of these tools. However, what is ‘clinical acceptability’? Quantitative and qualitative approaches have been used to assess this ill-defined concept, all of which have advantages and disadvantages or limitations. The approach chosen may depend on the goal of the study as well as on available resources. In this paper, we discuss various aspects of ‘clinical acceptability’ and how they can move us toward a standard for defining clinical acceptability of new autocontouring and planning tools.

Original language	English (US)
Article number	667
Journal	Diagnostics
Volume	13
Issue number	4
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics13040667
State	Published - Feb 2023

Keywords

artificial intelligence
quality assurance
radiotherapy treatment planning

ASJC Scopus subject areas

Clinical Biochemistry

Access to Document

10.3390/diagnostics13040667

Cite this

Baroudi, H., Brock, K. K., Cao, W., Chen, X., Chung, C., Court, L. E., El Basha, M. D., Farhat, M., Gay, S., Gronberg, M. P., Gupta, A. C., Hernandez, S., Huang, K., Jaffray, D. A., Lim, R., Marquez, B., Nealon, K., Netherton, T. J., Nguyen, C. M., ... Zhao, Y. (2023). Automated Contouring and Planning in Radiation Therapy: What Is ‘Clinically Acceptable’? Diagnostics, 13(4), Article 667. https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics13040667

Baroudi, H, Brock, KK , Cao, W, Chen, X, Chung, C , Court, LE, El Basha, MD, Farhat, M, Gay, S, Gronberg, MP, Gupta, AC, Hernandez, S, Huang, K, Jaffray, DA, Lim, R, Marquez, B, Nealon, K, Netherton, TJ , Nguyen, CM, Reber, B, Rhee, DJ, Salazar, RM, Shanker, MD, Sjogreen, C, Woodland, M, Yang, J, Yu, C & Zhao, Y 2023, 'Automated Contouring and Planning in Radiation Therapy: What Is ‘Clinically Acceptable’?', Diagnostics, vol. 13, no. 4, 667. https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics13040667

@article{408233d100414f9a9d0b82437c027e41,

title = "Automated Contouring and Planning in Radiation Therapy: What Is {\textquoteleft}Clinically Acceptable{\textquoteright}?",

abstract = "Developers and users of artificial-intelligence-based tools for automatic contouring and treatment planning in radiotherapy are expected to assess clinical acceptability of these tools. However, what is {\textquoteleft}clinical acceptability{\textquoteright}? Quantitative and qualitative approaches have been used to assess this ill-defined concept, all of which have advantages and disadvantages or limitations. The approach chosen may depend on the goal of the study as well as on available resources. In this paper, we discuss various aspects of {\textquoteleft}clinical acceptability{\textquoteright} and how they can move us toward a standard for defining clinical acceptability of new autocontouring and planning tools.",

keywords = "artificial intelligence, quality assurance, radiotherapy treatment planning",

author = "Hana Baroudi and Brock, {Kristy K.} and Wenhua Cao and Xinru Chen and Caroline Chung and Court, {Laurence E.} and {El Basha}, {Mohammad D.} and Maguy Farhat and Skylar Gay and Gronberg, {Mary P.} and Gupta, {Aashish Chandra} and Soleil Hernandez and Kai Huang and Jaffray, {David A.} and Rebecca Lim and Barbara Marquez and Kelly Nealon and Netherton, {Tucker J.} and Nguyen, {Callistus M.} and Brandon Reber and Rhee, {Dong Joo} and Salazar, {Ramon M.} and Shanker, {Mihir D.} and Carlos Sjogreen and McKell Woodland and Jinzhong Yang and Cenji Yu and Yao Zhao",

note = "Publisher Copyright: {\textcopyright} 2023 by the authors.",

year = "2023",

month = feb,

doi = "10.3390/diagnostics13040667",

language = "English (US)",

volume = "13",

journal = "Diagnostics",

issn = "2075-4418",

publisher = "MDPI AG",

number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Automated Contouring and Planning in Radiation Therapy

T2 - What Is ‘Clinically Acceptable’?

AU - Baroudi, Hana

AU - Brock, Kristy K.

AU - Cao, Wenhua

AU - Chen, Xinru

AU - Chung, Caroline

AU - Court, Laurence E.

AU - El Basha, Mohammad D.

AU - Farhat, Maguy

AU - Gay, Skylar

AU - Gronberg, Mary P.

AU - Gupta, Aashish Chandra

AU - Hernandez, Soleil

AU - Huang, Kai

AU - Jaffray, David A.

AU - Lim, Rebecca

AU - Marquez, Barbara

AU - Nealon, Kelly

AU - Netherton, Tucker J.

AU - Nguyen, Callistus M.

AU - Reber, Brandon

AU - Rhee, Dong Joo

AU - Salazar, Ramon M.

AU - Shanker, Mihir D.

AU - Sjogreen, Carlos

AU - Woodland, McKell

AU - Yang, Jinzhong

AU - Yu, Cenji

AU - Zhao, Yao

PY - 2023/2

Y1 - 2023/2

N2 - Developers and users of artificial-intelligence-based tools for automatic contouring and treatment planning in radiotherapy are expected to assess clinical acceptability of these tools. However, what is ‘clinical acceptability’? Quantitative and qualitative approaches have been used to assess this ill-defined concept, all of which have advantages and disadvantages or limitations. The approach chosen may depend on the goal of the study as well as on available resources. In this paper, we discuss various aspects of ‘clinical acceptability’ and how they can move us toward a standard for defining clinical acceptability of new autocontouring and planning tools.

AB - Developers and users of artificial-intelligence-based tools for automatic contouring and treatment planning in radiotherapy are expected to assess clinical acceptability of these tools. However, what is ‘clinical acceptability’? Quantitative and qualitative approaches have been used to assess this ill-defined concept, all of which have advantages and disadvantages or limitations. The approach chosen may depend on the goal of the study as well as on available resources. In this paper, we discuss various aspects of ‘clinical acceptability’ and how they can move us toward a standard for defining clinical acceptability of new autocontouring and planning tools.

KW - artificial intelligence

KW - quality assurance

KW - radiotherapy treatment planning

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85149108728&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85149108728&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.3390/diagnostics13040667

DO - 10.3390/diagnostics13040667

M3 - Review article

C2 - 36832155

AN - SCOPUS:85149108728

SN - 2075-4418

VL - 13

JO - Diagnostics

JF - Diagnostics

IS - 4

M1 - 667

ER -

Automated Contouring and Planning in Radiation Therapy: What Is ‘Clinically Acceptable’?

Abstract

Keywords

ASJC Scopus subject areas

Access to Document

Other files and links

Fingerprint

Cite this