Clinical Evaluation of Deep Learning for Tumor Delineation on 18 F-FDG PET/CT of Head and Neck Cancer
David G Kovacs,Claes N Ladefoged,Kim F Andersen,Jane M Brittain,Charlotte B Christensen,Danijela Dejanovic,Naja L Hansen,Annika Loft,Jørgen H Petersen,Michala Reichkendler,Flemming L Andersen,Barbara M Fischer,David G. Kovacs,Claes N. Ladefoged,Kim F. Andersen,Jane M. Brittain,Charlotte B. Christensen,Naja L. Hansen,Jørgen H. Petersen,Flemming L. Andersen,Barbara M. Fischer
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.123.266574
2024-02-22
Journal of Nuclear Medicine
Abstract:Artificial intelligence (AI) may decrease <sup>18</sup>F<b>-</b>FDG PET/CT-based gross tumor volume (GTV) delineation variability and automate tumor-volume-derived image biomarker extraction. Hence, we aimed to identify and evaluate promising state-of-the-art deep learning methods for head and neck cancer (HNC) PET GTV delineation. <b>Methods:</b> We trained and evaluated deep learning methods using retrospectively included scans of HNC patients referred for radiotherapy between January 2014 and December 2019 (ISRCTN16907234). We used 3 test datasets: an internal set to compare methods, another internal set to compare AI-to-expert variability and expert interobserver variability (IOV), and an external set to compare internal and external AI-to-expert variability. Expert PET GTVs were used as the reference standard. Our benchmark IOV was measured using the PET GTV of 6 experts. The primary outcome was the Dice similarity coefficient (DSC). ANOVA was used to compare methods, a paired <i>t</i> test was used to compare AI-to-expert variability and expert IOV, an unpaired <i>t</i> test was used to compare internal and external AI-to-expert variability, and post hoc Bland-Altman analysis was used to evaluate biomarker agreement. <b>Results:</b> In total, 1,220 <sup>18</sup>F<b>-</b>FDG PET/CT scans of 1,190 patients (mean age ± SD, 63 ± 10 y; 858 men) were included, and 5 deep learning methods were trained using 5-fold cross-validation (<i>n</i> = 805). The nnU-Net method achieved the highest similarity (DSC, 0.80 [95% CI, 0.77-0.86]; <i>n</i> = 196). We found no evidence of a difference between expert IOV and AI-to-expert variability (DSC, 0.78 for AI vs. 0.82 for experts; mean difference of 0.04 [95% CI, -0.01 to 0.09]; <i>P</i> = 0.12; <i>n</i> = 64). We found no evidence of a difference between the internal and external AI-to-expert variability (DSC, 0.80 internally vs. 0.81 externally; mean difference of 0.004 [95% CI, -0.05 to 0.04]; <i>P</i> = 0.87; <i>n</i> = 125). PET GTV-derived biomarkers of AI were in good agreement with experts. <b>Conclusion:</b> Deep learning can be used to automate <sup>18</sup>F<b>-</b>FDG PET/CT tumor-volume-derived imaging biomarkers, and the deep-learning-based volumes have the potential to assist clinical tumor volume delineation in radiation oncology.
radiology, nuclear medicine & medical imaging