METHODS: A user-friendly software was developed to accurately predict the individual size-specific dose estimation of paediatric patients undergoing computed tomography (CT) scans of the head, thorax, and abdomen. The software includes a calculation equation developed based on a novel SSDE prediction equation that used a population's pre-determined percentage difference between volume-weighted computed tomography dose index (CTDIvol) and SSDE with age. American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM RPT 204) method (manual) and segmentation-based SSDE calculators (indoseCT and XXautocalc) were used to assess the proposed software predictions comparatively.
RESULTS: The results of this study show that the automated equation-based calculation of SSDE and the manual and segmentation-based calculation of SSDE are in good agreement for patients. The differences between the automated equation-based calculation of SSDE and the manual and segmentation-based calculation are less than 3%.
CONCLUSION: This study validated an accurate SSDE calculator that allows users to enter key input values and calculate SSDE.
IMPLICATION FOR PRACTICE: The automated equation-based SSDE software (PESSD) seems a promising tool for estimating individualised CT doses during CT scans.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Ninety-seven ROs were randomly assigned to either manual or AI-assisted contouring of eight OARs for two head-and-neck cancer cases with an in-between teaching session on contouring guidelines. Thereby, the effect of teaching (yes/no) and AI-assisted contouring (yes/no) was quantified. Second, ROs completed short-term and long-term follow-up cases all using AI assistance. Contour quality was quantified with Dice Similarity Coefficient (DSC) between ROs' contours and expert consensus contours. Groups were compared using absolute differences in medians with 95% CIs.
RESULTS: AI-assisted contouring without previous teaching increased absolute DSC for optic nerve (by 0.05 [0.01; 0.10]), oral cavity (0.10 [0.06; 0.13]), parotid (0.07 [0.05; 0.12]), spinal cord (0.04 [0.01; 0.06]), and mandible (0.02 [0.01; 0.03]). Contouring time decreased for brain stem (-1.41 [-2.44; -0.25]), mandible (-6.60 [-8.09; -3.35]), optic nerve (-0.19 [-0.47; -0.02]), parotid (-1.80 [-2.66; -0.32]), and thyroid (-1.03 [-2.18; -0.05]). Without AI-assisted contouring, teaching increased DSC for oral cavity (0.05 [0.01; 0.09]) and thyroid (0.04 [0.02; 0.07]), and contouring time increased for mandible (2.36 [-0.51; 5.14]), oral cavity (1.42 [-0.08; 4.14]), and thyroid (1.60 [-0.04; 2.22]).
CONCLUSION: The study suggested that AI-assisted contouring is safe and beneficial to ROs working in LMICs. Prospective clinical trials on AI-assisted contouring should, however, be conducted upon clinical implementation to confirm the effects.