[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"doc-detail-124897-en":3,"doc-seo-124897-105":30,"detail-sidebar-cat-0-en-105":91},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"success",{"doc_id":7,"user_id":8,"nickname":9,"user_avatar":10,"doc_module":4,"category_id":11,"category_name":12,"doc_title":13,"doc_description":14,"doc_content":15,"file_id":16,"file_url":17,"file_type":18,"file_size":19,"view_count":20,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":20,"is_downloadable":20,"audit_status":20,"page_count":21,"language":22,"language_code":23,"site_id":24,"html_lang":23,"table_of_contents":25,"faqs":26,"seo_title":27,"seo_description":14,"update_tm":28,"read_time":29},124897,137441390410,"Hazel","https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/avatar/2000252f4ab5702993?_k=1776741390130283984",8,"Research & Report","Analyzing the Relationship between Dose and Geometric Agreement Metrics for Auto-Contouring in Head and Neck Normal Tissues","This retrospective study quantifies how geometric agreement metrics relate to dosimetric agreement for auto-contouring in head and neck cancer radiotherapy plans. A total of 287 plans compared auto-contours and clinically used contours using DSC, surface DSC, and Hausdorff distance, with additional organ-at-risk evaluation for ≥200 cGy differences in Dmax and Dmean. A secondary multi-institutional set of 91 plans validated the findings, showing strong geometric concordance overall but potential misclassification near the PTV boundary.","diagnostics  \nArticle  \nAnalyzing the Relationship between Dose and Geometric Agreement Metrics for Auto-Contouring in Head and Neck Normal Tissues  \nBarbara Marquez 1,2, *, Zachary T. Wooten 3, Ramon M. Salazar 1,2, Christine B. Peterson 2,4, David T. Fuentes 2,5, T. J. Whitaker 1, Anuja Jhingran 6, Julianne Pollard-Larkin 1,2, Surendra Prajapati 1,2, Beth Beadle 7,  \nCarlos E. Cardenas 8, Tucker J. Netherton 1 and Laurence E. Court 1,2  \nCitation: Marquez, B.; Wooten, Z.T.; Salazar, R.M.; Peterson, C.B.; Fuentes, D.T.; Whitaker, T.J.; Jhingran, A.; Pollard-Larkin, J.; Prajapati, S.; Beadle, B.; et al. Analyzing the Relationship between Dose and Geometric Agreement Metrics for AutoContouring in Head and Neck Normal Tissues. Diagnostics 2024, 14, 1632. [https://doi.org/10.3390/](https://doi.org/10.3390/)[ ](https://doi.org/10.3390/)diagnostics14151632  \nAcademic Editor: Daniele Giansanti  \nReceived: 12 June 2024  \nRevised: 18 July 2024  \nAccepted: 19 July 2024  \nPublished: 29 July 2024  \nCopyright: © 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license ([https://](https://)[ ](https://)[creativecommons.org/licenses/by/](creativecommons.org/licenses/by/)[ ](creativecommons.org/licenses/by/)[4.0/](4.0/)) .  \n1 Department of Radiation Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, USA; [rmsalazar1@mdanderson.org](rmsalazar1@mdanderson.org) (R.M.S.); [tjwhitaker@mdanderson.org](tjwhitaker@mdanderson.org) (T.J.W.); [jmpollard@mdanderson.org](jmpollard@mdanderson.org) (J.P.-L.); [lecourt@mdanderson.org](lecourt@mdanderson.org) (L.E.C.)  \n2 The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center UTHealth Houston Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences, Houston, TX 77030, USA  \n3 Department of Statistics, Rice University, Houston, TX 77005, USA; [ztw5@rice.edu](ztw5@rice.edu)  \n4 Department of Biostatistics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, USA  \n5 Department of Imaging Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, USA  \n6 Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, USA  \n7 Department of Radiation Oncology–Radiation Therapy, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305, USA; [bbeadle@stanford.edu](bbeadle@stanford.edu)  \n8 Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Alabama, Birmingham, AL 35294, USA  \n* [Correspondence: bmarquez@mdanderson.org](Correspondence: bmarquez@mdanderson.org); Tel.: +1-786-351-2115  \nAbstract: This study aimed to determine the relationship between geometric and dosimetric agreement metrics in head and neck (H&N) cancer radiotherapy plans. A total 287 plans were retrospectively analyzed, comparing auto-contoured and clinically used contours using a Dice similarity coefficient (DSC), surface DSC (sDSC), and Hausdorff distance (HD) . Organs-at-risk (OARs) with ≥200 cGy dose differences from the clinical contour in terms of Dmax (D0.01cc) and Dmean were further examined against proximity to the planning target volume (PTV) . A secondary set of 91 plans from multiple institutions validated these findings. For 4995 contour pairs across 19 OARs, 90% hada DSC, sDSC, and HD of at least 0.75, 0.86, and less than 7.65 mm, respectively. Dosimetrically, the absolute difference between the two contour sets was \u003C200 cGy for 95% of OARs in terms of Dmax and 96% in terms of Dmean . In total, 97% of OARs exhibiting significant dose differences between the clinically edited contour and auto-contour were within 2.5 cm PTV regardless of geometric agreement. There was an approximately linear trend between geometric agreement and identifying at least 200 cGy dose differences, with higher geometric agreement corresponding to a lower fraction of cases being identified. Analysis of the secondary dataset validated these findings. Geometric indic","cbCaifojql7nquke","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaifojql7nquke","pdf",399442,1,13,"English","en",105,"# Abstract\n## Study Design and Datasets\n## Methods and Metrics\n## Key Findings and Validation\n# Introduction\n## Importance of Contouring Accuracy\n## Role of Auto-Contouring\n## Limitations of Geometric Metrics","[{\"question\":\"What relationship does the study evaluate between dose and geometric metrics?\",\"answer\":\"The study evaluates how geometric agreement metrics (DSC, surface DSC, and Hausdorff distance) relate to dosimetric agreement in head and neck radiotherapy auto-contouring.\"},{\"question\":\"How were auto-contours and clinical contours compared in the analysis?\",\"answer\":\"A retrospective cohort of 287 plans compared auto-contours with clinically used contours using DSC, surface DSC, and Hausdorff distance, and examined organs-at-risk with ≥200 cGy differences using Dmax (D0.01cc) and Dmean.\"},{\"question\":\"When can geometric agreement metrics be misleading?\",\"answer\":\"For a subset of organs-at-risk located within about 2.5 cm of the planning target volume, geometric agreement metrics may mislead contour quality assessment despite geometric concordance.\"}]","Analyzing the Relationship between Dose and Geometric Agreement Metrics for Auto-Contouring in Head and Neck Normal Tissues | PDF",1785895281,33,{"code":4,"msg":31,"data":32},"ok",{"site_id":24,"language":23,"slug":33,"title":13,"keywords":34,"description":14,"schema_data":35,"social_meta":86,"head_meta":88,"extra_data":90,"updated_unix":28},"analyzing-the-relationship-between-dose-and-geometric-agreement-metrics-for-auto-contouring-in-head-and-neck-normal-tissues","",{"@graph":36,"@context":85},[37,54,68],{"@type":38,"itemListElement":39},"BreadcrumbList",[40,44,48,51],{"item":41,"name":42,"@type":43,"position":20},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",{"item":45,"name":46,"@type":43,"position":47},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/","Document",2,{"item":49,"name":12,"@type":43,"position":50},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/research-report/",3,{"item":52,"name":13,"@type":43,"position":53},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/analyzing-the-relationship-between-dose-and-geometric-agreement-metrics-for-auto-contouring-in-head-and-neck-normal-tissues/124897/",4,{"url":52,"name":13,"@type":55,"author":56,"headline":13,"publisher":58,"fileFormat":61,"inLanguage":23,"description":14,"dateModified":62,"datePublished":62,"encodingFormat":61,"isAccessibleForFree":63,"interactionStatistic":64},"DigitalDocument",{"name":9,"@type":57},"Person",{"url":41,"name":59,"@type":60},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-08-05",true,{"@type":65,"interactionType":66,"userInteractionCount":20},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":67},"ViewAction",{"@type":69,"mainEntity":70},"FAQPage",[71,77,81],{"name":72,"@type":73,"acceptedAnswer":74},"What relationship does the study evaluate between dose and geometric metrics?","Question",{"text":75,"@type":76},"The study evaluates how geometric agreement metrics (DSC, surface DSC, and Hausdorff distance) relate to dosimetric agreement in head and neck radiotherapy auto-contouring.","Answer",{"name":78,"@type":73,"acceptedAnswer":79},"How were auto-contours and clinical contours compared in the analysis?",{"text":80,"@type":76},"A retrospective cohort of 287 plans compared auto-contours with clinically used contours using DSC, surface DSC, and Hausdorff distance, and examined organs-at-risk with ≥200 cGy differences using Dmax (D0.01cc) and Dmean.",{"name":82,"@type":73,"acceptedAnswer":83},"When can geometric agreement metrics be misleading?",{"text":84,"@type":76},"For a subset of organs-at-risk located within about 2.5 cm of the planning target volume, geometric agreement metrics may mislead contour quality assessment despite geometric concordance.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":52,"og:type":87,"og:title":13,"og:site_name":59,"og:description":14},"article",{"robots":89,"canonical":52},"index,follow",{"doc_id":7,"site_id":24},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":92},[93,97,101,105,110,115,120,123,128,131,135],{"id":20,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":46,"category_name":94,"show_sort_weight":95,"slug":96},"Story & Novel",90,"story-novel",{"id":47,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":46,"category_name":98,"show_sort_weight":99,"slug":100},"Literature",80,"literature",{"id":53,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":46,"category_name":102,"show_sort_weight":103,"slug":104},"Exam",70,"exam",{"id":106,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":46,"category_name":107,"show_sort_weight":108,"slug":109},5,"Comic",60,"comic",{"id":111,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":46,"category_name":112,"show_sort_weight":113,"slug":114},6,"Technology",50,"technology",{"id":116,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":46,"category_name":117,"show_sort_weight":118,"slug":119},7,"Healthcare",40,"healthcare",{"id":11,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":46,"category_name":12,"show_sort_weight":121,"slug":122},30,"research-report",{"id":124,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":46,"category_name":125,"show_sort_weight":126,"slug":127},9,"Religion & Spirituality",20,"religion-spirituality",{"id":126,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":46,"category_name":129,"show_sort_weight":126,"slug":130},"World Cup","world-cup",{"id":132,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":46,"category_name":133,"show_sort_weight":132,"slug":134},10,"Lifestyle","lifestyle",{"id":136,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":46,"category_name":137,"show_sort_weight":106,"slug":138},19,"General","general"]