Scholarlink

Background <p>The efficacy of deep learning-based artificial intelligence segmentation (AI-seg) in <sup>177</sup>Lu-DOTATATE dosimetry remains underexplored. This study evaluates AI-seg’s contouring accuracy, dosimetric reliability, and time efficiency.</p> Methods <p>We analyzed 23 patients treated with <sup>177</sup>Lu-DOTATATE. Four medical physicists (MPs) and four radiological technologists (RTs) manually delineated liver (including lesions), spleen, and kidneys on CT images. The most experienced MP modified AI-seg outputs to establish a reference contour, confirmed by a board-certified physician. Both the manual and AI-seg contours were checked against this reference using the Dice similarity coefficient (DSC), Hausdorff distance (HD), and mean distance to agreement (MDA). Maximum, mean, and minimum absorbed doses were calculated from a single time-point image using SurePlan™ MRT (MIM Software Inc.) to assess dosimetric implications. The total time required for dosimetry—including image reconstruction, segmentation, and absorbed dose calculation—was compared between the manual and reference methods.</p> Results <p>Only one liver delineation by an MP required correction. Median (IQR) DSCs for liver, spleen, and kidneys were 0.955 (0.950–0.961), 0.929 (0.898–0.944), and 0.929 (0.918–0.942) for manual, 0.988 (0.946–0.998), 0.965 (0.858–0.995), and 0.994 (0.985–0.999) for AI-seg, respectively. All organs met the acceptable DSC threshold (<InlineEquation ID="IEq1"> <EquationSource Format="TEX">\(\:\ge\:\)</EquationSource> </InlineEquation>0.8). Median HD in liver exceeded 10.0&#xa0;mm for both methods, with AI-seg exceeding 30.0&#xa0;mm in a few cases (liver: 3/23; spleen: 2/23) due to hepatomegaly. The median MDA in manual and AI-seg was below 2.0&#xa0;mm. Median mean absorbed doses in the reference was 4.03 (1.69–5.81) Gy for liver, 1.55 (1.30–2.50) Gy for spleen, and 2.03 (1.45–2.44) Gy for kidneys. Only the kidneys absorbed dose from AI-seg differed significantly, showing a 1.4% increase. Dosimetry using the reference method took significantly less time than the manual approach (47.0 [30.0–58.0] min vs. 54.3 [49.5–67.0] min, <i>p</i> = 0.014).</p> Conclusions <p>AI-seg with minor adjustment enables faster yet accurate absorbed dose estimation in <sup>177</sup>Lu-DOTATATE. Despite segmentation challenges in hepatomegaly cases, MPs and RTs demonstrated competent contouring performance, supporting collaborative dosimetry workflows with physician oversight.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Evaluation of segmentation accuracy and the improvement of time effectiveness using deep learning-based segmentation in 177Lu-DOTATATE dosimetry

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2026年5月24日

查看全文
  • Tetsu Nakaichi,
  • Yuhei Shimizu,
  • Satoshi Nakamura,
  • Yasunori Shuto,
  • Yusaku Kasai,
  • Atsushi Shishido,
  • Kouji Kunito,
  • Hiroki Nakayama,
  • Mihiro Takemori,
  • Masashi Kawamura,
  • Takahito Chiba,
  • Hiroyuki Okamoto,
  • Tairo Kashihara,
  • Hiroshi Igaki,
  • Kimiteru Ito

摘要

Background

The efficacy of deep learning-based artificial intelligence segmentation (AI-seg) in 177Lu-DOTATATE dosimetry remains underexplored. This study evaluates AI-seg’s contouring accuracy, dosimetric reliability, and time efficiency.

Methods

We analyzed 23 patients treated with 177Lu-DOTATATE. Four medical physicists (MPs) and four radiological technologists (RTs) manually delineated liver (including lesions), spleen, and kidneys on CT images. The most experienced MP modified AI-seg outputs to establish a reference contour, confirmed by a board-certified physician. Both the manual and AI-seg contours were checked against this reference using the Dice similarity coefficient (DSC), Hausdorff distance (HD), and mean distance to agreement (MDA). Maximum, mean, and minimum absorbed doses were calculated from a single time-point image using SurePlan™ MRT (MIM Software Inc.) to assess dosimetric implications. The total time required for dosimetry—including image reconstruction, segmentation, and absorbed dose calculation—was compared between the manual and reference methods.

Results

Only one liver delineation by an MP required correction. Median (IQR) DSCs for liver, spleen, and kidneys were 0.955 (0.950–0.961), 0.929 (0.898–0.944), and 0.929 (0.918–0.942) for manual, 0.988 (0.946–0.998), 0.965 (0.858–0.995), and 0.994 (0.985–0.999) for AI-seg, respectively. All organs met the acceptable DSC threshold ( \(\:\ge\:\) 0.8). Median HD in liver exceeded 10.0 mm for both methods, with AI-seg exceeding 30.0 mm in a few cases (liver: 3/23; spleen: 2/23) due to hepatomegaly. The median MDA in manual and AI-seg was below 2.0 mm. Median mean absorbed doses in the reference was 4.03 (1.69–5.81) Gy for liver, 1.55 (1.30–2.50) Gy for spleen, and 2.03 (1.45–2.44) Gy for kidneys. Only the kidneys absorbed dose from AI-seg differed significantly, showing a 1.4% increase. Dosimetry using the reference method took significantly less time than the manual approach (47.0 [30.0–58.0] min vs. 54.3 [49.5–67.0] min, p = 0.014).

Conclusions

AI-seg with minor adjustment enables faster yet accurate absorbed dose estimation in 177Lu-DOTATATE. Despite segmentation challenges in hepatomegaly cases, MPs and RTs demonstrated competent contouring performance, supporting collaborative dosimetry workflows with physician oversight.