Skip to main content
 
Notice: Users may be experiencing issues with displaying some pages on stanfordhealthcare.org. We are working closely with our technical teams to resolve the issue as quickly as possible. Thank you for your patience.
Stanford Health Care

Multidisciplinary consensus prostate contours on magnetic resonance imaging: educational atlas and reference standard for artificial intelligence benchmarking.

Multidisciplinary consensus prostate contours on magnetic resonance imaging: educational atlas and reference standard for artificial intelligence benchmarking. International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics Song, Y., Dornisch, A., Dess, R. T., Margolis, D. J., Weinberg, E. P., Barrett, T., Cornell, M., Fan, R. E., Harisinghani, M., Kamran, S. C., Lee, J. H., Li, C. X., Liss, M. A., Rusu, M., Santos, J., Sonn, G. A., Vidic, I., Woolen, S. A., Dale, A. M., Seibert, T. M. 2025

Abstract

Evaluation of artificial intelligence (AI) algorithms for prostate segmentation is challenging because ground truth is lacking. We aimed to (1) create a reference standard dataset with precise prostate contours by expert consensus and (2) evaluate various AI tools against this standard.We obtained prostate MRI cases from XXX. A panel of four experts (two genitourinary radiologists, two prostate radiation oncologists) meticulously developed consensus prostate segmentations on axial T2-weighted series. We evaluated the performance of six AI tools (three commercially available, three academic) using Dice scores, distance from reference contour, and volume error.The panel achieved consensus prostate segmentation on each slice of all 68 patient cases included in the reference dataset. We present two patient examples to serve as contouring guides. Depending on the AI tool, median Dice scores (across patients) ranged from 0.80 to 0.94 for whole prostate segmentation. For a typical (median) patient, AI tools had a mean error over the prostate surface ranging from 1.3 to 2.4 mm. They maximally deviated 3.0 to 9.4 mm outside the prostate and 3.0 to 8.5 mm inside the prostate for a typical patient. Error in prostate volume measurement for a typical patient ranged from 4.3% to 31.4%.We established an expert consensus benchmark for prostate segmentation. The best-performing AI tools have typical accuracy greater than that reported for radiation oncologists using CT scans (most common clinical approach for radiotherapy planning). Physician review remains essential to detect occasional major errors.

View details for DOI 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2025.03.024

View details for PubMedID 40154847