Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jul 20, 2025
Proton Therapy Delivery and Its Clinical Application in Select Solid Tumor Malignancies
Published on: February 6, 2019
Assessing the Feasibility of Using Artificial Intelligence-Segmented Dominant Intraprostatic Lesion for Focal
James M G Tsui1, Christopher E Kehayias2, Jonathan E Leeman2
1Department of Radiation Oncology, Brigham and Women's Hospital/Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts; Department of Radiation Oncology, McGill University Health Centre, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
Purpose:
The delineation of dominant intraprostatic gross tumor volumes (GTVs) on multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) can be subject to interobserver variability. We evaluated whether deep learning artificial intelligence (AI)-segmented GTVs can provide a similar degree of intraprostatic boosting with external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) as radiation oncologist (RO)-delineated GTVs.
Methods And Materials:
We identified 124 patients who underwent mpMRI followed by EBRT between 2010 and 2013. A reference GTV was delineated by an RO and approved by a board-certified radiologist. We trained an AI algorithm for GTV delineation on 89 patients, and tested the algorithm on 35 patients, each with at least 1 PI-RADS (Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System) 4 or 5 lesion (46 total lesions). We then asked 5 additional ROs to independently delineate GTVs on the test set. We compared lesion detectability and geometric accuracy of the GTVs from AI and 5 ROs against the reference GTV. Then, we generated EBRT plans (77 Gy prostate) that boosted each observer-specific GTV to 95 Gy. We compared reference GTV dose (D98%) across observers using a mixed-effects model.
Results:
On a lesion level, AI GTV exhibited a sensitivity of 82.6% and positive predictive value of 86.4%. Respective ranges among the 5 RO GTVs were 84.8% to 95.7% and 95.1% to 100.0%. Among 30 GTVs mutually identified by all observers, no significant differences in Dice coefficient were detected between AI and any of the 5 ROs. Across all patients, only 2 of 5 ROs had a reference GTV D98% that significantly differed from that of AI by 2.56 Gy (P = .02) and 3.20 Gy (P = .003). The presence of false-negative (-5.97 Gy; P < .001) but not false-positive (P = .24) lesions was associated with reference GTV D98%.
Conclusions:
AI-segmented GTVs demonstrate potential for intraprostatic boosting, although the degree of boosting may be adversely affected by false-negative lesions. Prospective review of AI-segmented GTVs remains essential.
