Search

Simple Summary: In this study, we compared two artificial intelligence (AI) tools, OncoStudio and Protégé AI, for their ability to automatically segment organs in Korean cancer patients undergoing radiation therapy. Manual contouring of organs is time-consuming and can vary among clinicians, potentially impacting treatment accuracy. We aimed to evaluate how well the aforementioned AI tools can assist clinicians by speeding up this process and ensuring precision. Our findings showed that OncoStudio, which was specifically developed for Korean patients, performed better in most cases than Protégé AI, a globally developed tool. These results suggest that population-specific AI tools can improve radiation therapy planning, ultimately enhancing patient outcomes and reducing clinician workload. Background: Accurate delineation of tumors and organs at risk (OARs) is crucial for intensity-modulated radiation therapy. This study aimed to evaluate the performance of OncoStudio, an AI-based auto-segmentation tool developed for Korean patients, compared with Protégé AI, a globally developed tool that uses data from Korean cancer patients. Methods: A retrospective analysis of 1200 Korean cancer patients treated with radiotherapy was conducted. Auto-contours generated via OncoStudio and Protégé AI were compared with manual contours across the head and neck and thoracic, abdominal, and pelvic organs. Accuracy was assessed using the Dice similarity coefficient (DSC), mean surface distance (MSD), and 95% Hausdorff distance (HD). Feedback was obtained from 10 participants, including radiation oncologists, residents, and radiation therapists, via an online survey with a Turing test component. Results: OncoStudio outperformed Protégé AI in 85% of the evaluated OARs (p < 0.001). For head and neck organs, OncoStudio achieved a similar DSC (0.70 vs. 0.70, p = 0.637) but significantly lower MSD and 95% HD values (p < 0.001). In thoracic organs, OncoStudio performed excellently in 90% of cases, with a significantly greater DSC (male: 0.87 vs. 0.82, p < 0.001; female: 0.95 vs. 0.87, p < 0.001). OncoStudio also demonstrated superior accuracy in abdominal (DSC 0.88 vs. 0.81, p < 0.001) and pelvic organs (male: DSC 0.95 vs. 0.85, p < 0.001; female: DSC 0.82 vs. 0.73, p < 0.001). Clinicians favored OncoStudio in 70% of cases, with 90% endorsing its clinical suitability for Korean patients. Conclusions: OncoStudio, which is tailored for Korean patients, demonstrated superior segmentation accuracy across multiple anatomical regions, suggesting its suitability for radiotherapy planning in this population. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Simple Summary: Laparoscopic total gastrectomy (LTG) remains controversial in terms of its short- and long-term surgical outcomes in comparison to open total gastrectomy (OTG). This study aimed to compare the outcomes of LTG with OTG. There was no significant difference in short-term outcomes between the two groups. Additionally, the 3-year disease-free survival and 5-year overall survival rates were not significantly different between the two groups. Therefore, LTG could be an alternative approach to OTG. This study aimed to compare the efficacy of laparoscopic total gastrectomy (LTG) with that of open total gastrectomy (OTG) in terms of postoperative complications and long-term survival. We retrospectively reviewed the clinicopathological data of 560 patients, who underwent total gastrectomy between 2012 and 2016 at the National Cancer Center, Korea. Propensity-score matching (PSM) was performed to correct for discrepancies between the two groups. Matched variables included sex, age, body mass index, American Society of Anesthesiologists score, and pathological Tumor–Node–Metastasis stage. After PSM, 238 patients were included in this analysis. The rate of D2 lymph node dissection was significantly higher in the OTG group than in the LTG group. The estimated blood loss was significantly lower in the LTG group than in the OTG group. The overall complication rate was not significantly different between the two groups. There was no significant difference in the 3-year disease-free and 5-year overall survival rates between the two groups. LTG and OTG had comparable efficacies in gastric cancer patients regarding short- and long-term surgical outcomes. This study suggests that LTG could be an alternative approach to the OTG. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]