OpenKBP: The open-access knowledge-based planning grand challenge and dataset

被引:65
|
作者
Babier, Aaron [1 ]
Zhang, Binghao [1 ]
Mahmood, Rafid [1 ]
Moore, Kevin L. [2 ]
Purdie, Thomas G. [3 ,4 ]
McNiven, Andrea L. [3 ,4 ]
Chan, Timothy C. Y. [1 ,5 ]
机构
[1] Univ Toronto, Dept Mech & Ind Engn, 5 Kings Coll Rd, Toronto, ON M5S 3G8, Canada
[2] Univ Calif San Diego, Dept Radiat Oncol, 3855 Hlth Sci Dr, La Jolla, CA 92104 USA
[3] UHN Princess Margaret Canc Ctr, Radiat Med Program, 610 Univ Ave, Toronto, ON M5T 2M9, Canada
[4] Univ Toronto, Dept Radiat Oncol, 148-150 Coll St, Toronto, ON M5S 3S2, Canada
[5] Techna Inst Adv Technol Hlth, 124-100 Coll St, Toronto, ON M5G 1P5, Canada
关键词
automated planning; computer vision; equity; diversity; and inclusion; knowledge-based planning; machine learning; public dataset; DOSE PREDICTION; AT-RISK; OPTIMIZATION; QUALITY;
D O I
10.1002/mp.14845
中图分类号
R8 [特种医学]; R445 [影像诊断学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100207 ; 1009 ;
摘要
Purpose To advance fair and consistent comparisons of dose prediction methods for knowledge-based planning (KBP) in radiation therapy research. Methods We hosted OpenKBP, a 2020 AAPM Grand Challenge, and challenged participants to develop the best method for predicting the dose of contoured computed tomography (CT) images. The models were evaluated according to two separate scores: (a) dose score, which evaluates the full three-dimensional (3D) dose distributions, and (b) dose-volume histogram (DVH) score, which evaluates a set DVH metrics. We used these scores to quantify the quality of the models based on their out-of-sample predictions. To develop and test their models, participants were given the data of 340 patients who were treated for head-and-neck cancer with radiation therapy. The data were partitioned into training (n=200), validation (n=40), and testing (n=100) datasets. All participants performed training and validation with the corresponding datasets during the first (validation) phase of the Challenge. In the second (testing) phase, the participants used their model on the testing data to quantify the out-of-sample performance, which was hidden from participants and used to determine the final competition ranking. Participants also responded to a survey to summarize their models. Results The Challenge attracted 195 participants from 28 countries, and 73 of those participants formed 44 teams in the validation phase, which received a total of 1750 submissions. The testing phase garnered submissions from 28 of those teams, which represents 28 unique prediction methods. On average, over the course of the validation phase, participants improved the dose and DVH scores of their models by a factor of 2.7 and 5.7, respectively. In the testing phase one model achieved the best dose score (2.429) and DVH score (1.478), which were both significantly better than the dose score (2.564) and the DVH score (1.529) that was achieved by the runner-up models. Lastly, many of the top performing teams reported that they used generalizable techniques (e.g., ensembles) to achieve higher performance than their competition. Conclusion OpenKBP is the first competition for knowledge-based planning research. The Challenge helped launch the first platform that enables researchers to compare KBP prediction methods fairly and consistently using a large open-source dataset and standardized metrics. OpenKBP has also democratized KBP research by making it accessible to everyone, which should help accelerate the progress of KBP research. The OpenKBP datasets are available publicly to help benchmark future KBP research.
引用
收藏
页码:5549 / 5561
页数:13
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] Outlier identification in radiation therapy knowledge-based planning: A study of pelvic cases
    Sheng, Yang
    Ge, Yaorong
    Yuan, Lulin
    Li, Taoran
    Yin, Fang-Fang
    Wu, Qingrong Jackie
    MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2017, 44 (11) : 5617 - 5626
  • [22] Developing knowledge-based planning for gynaecological and rectal cancers: a clinical validation of RapidPlan™
    Shepherd, Meegan
    Bromley, Regina
    Stevens, Mark
    Morgia, Marita
    Kneebone, Andrew
    Hruby, George
    Atyeo, John
    Eade, Thomas
    JOURNAL OF MEDICAL RADIATION SCIENCES, 2020, 67 (03) : 217 - 224
  • [23] Knowledge-based planning using both the predicted DVH of organ-at risk and planning target volume
    Jiao, Sheng Xiu
    Wang, Ming Li
    Chen, Li Xin
    Liu, Xiao-Wei
    MEDICAL ENGINEERING & PHYSICS, 2022, 110
  • [24] Functional-guided radiotherapy using knowledge-based planning
    Faught, Austin M.
    Olsen, Lindsey
    Schubert, Leah
    Rusthoven, Chad
    Castillo, Edward
    Castillo, Richard
    Zhang, Jingjing
    Guerrero, Thomas
    Miften, Moyed
    Vinogradskiy, Yevgeniy
    RADIOTHERAPY AND ONCOLOGY, 2018, 129 (03) : 494 - 498
  • [25] Assessing the practicality of using a single knowledge-based planning model for multiple linac vendors
    Douglas, Raphael J.
    Olanrewaju, Adenike
    Zhang, Lifei
    Beadle, Beth M.
    Court, Laurence E.
    JOURNAL OF APPLIED CLINICAL MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2022, 23 (08):
  • [26] Novel knowledge-based treatment planning model for hypofractionated radiotherapy of prostate cancer patients
    Chatterjee, Avishek
    Serban, Monica
    Faria, Sergio
    Souhami, Luis
    Cury, Fabio
    Seuntjens, Jan
    PHYSICA MEDICA-EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2020, 69 : 36 - 43
  • [27] Evaluation of a Knowledge-Based Planning Solution for Head and Neck Cancer
    Tol, Jim P.
    Delaney, Alexander R.
    Dahele, Max
    Slotman, Ben J.
    Verbakel, Wilko F. A. R.
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RADIATION ONCOLOGY BIOLOGY PHYSICS, 2015, 91 (03): : 612 - 620
  • [28] Planning for production efficiency in knowledge-based development
    Martinus, Kirsten
    JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT, 2010, 14 (05) : 726 - 743
  • [29] Knowledge-based versus deep learning based treatment planning for breast radiotherapy
    Portik, Daniel
    Clementel, Enrico
    Krayenbuhl, Jerome
    Bakx, Nienke
    Andratschke, Nicolaus
    Hurkmans, Coen
    PHYSICS & IMAGING IN RADIATION ONCOLOGY, 2024, 29
  • [30] Knowledge-based dose prediction models for head and neck cancer are strongly affected by interorgan dependency and dataset inconsistency
    Wang, Yibing
    Heijmen, Ben J. M.
    Petit, Steven F.
    MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2019, 46 (02) : 934 - 943