Back

Performance of an artificial intelligence foundation model for prostate radiotherapy segmentation

Doucette, M.; Liao, C.-Y.; Lin, M.-H.; Jiang, S.; Nguyen, D.; Yang, D. X.

2025-02-24 oncology
10.1101/2025.02.23.25322754 medRxiv
Show abstract

ImportanceArtificial intelligence (AI) foundation models such as Segment Anything Model 2 (SAM 2) offer potential for semi-automated image segmentation with minimal fine-tuning, but their performance in specialized clinical tasks like radiation therapy planning are not well characterized. ObjectiveTo evaluate the performance of SAM 2 in segmenting pre-operative intact prostate and post-operative prostate fossa targets for prostate radiotherapy planning. Design, Setting, ParticipantsRetrospective cohort study deploying and testing a foundation model for AI segmentation for prostate radiotherapy planning. CT simulation images and radiation plans were obtained from a single academic institution for patients undergoing prostate cancer treatment. Data analysis was performed from September 2024 to February 2025. ExposuresAI segmentation with varying levels of human intervention, ranging from intervals of every 2nd to every 10th ground truth slice provided as input. Main Outcome and MeasuresSegmentation accuracy measured by Dice Similarity Coefficient (DSC) and Hausdorff Distance (HD) for intact and post-operative prostate target delineation. ResultsWhile SAM 2 outperformed interpolation in DSC and HD for both intact and post-operative prostate cancer patient cases, the AI segmentation accuracy was significantly better in the intact pre-operative patient cases where anatomic boundaries were better defined than post-operative patient cases. This is especially evident when sparse ground truth was provided simulating lower levels of human intervention. Conclusions and RelevanceAI foundation models show promising application for specialized medical tasks such as prostate cancer radiotherapy segmentation with limited need for fine-tuning or retraining, although their clinical application will require further understanding of task-specific performance.

Published in JCO Clinical Cancer Informatics (predicted rank #7) · training set

Matching journals

The top 6 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.