Cargando…
A comparative study of automatic image segmentation algorithms for target tracking in MR‐IGRT
On‐board magnetic resonance (MR) image guidance during radiation therapy offers the potential for more accurate treatment delivery. To utilize the real‐time image information, a crucial prerequisite is the ability to successfully segment and track regions of interest (ROI). The purpose of this work...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
John Wiley and Sons Inc.
2016
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5875567/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27074465 http://dx.doi.org/10.1120/jacmp.v17i2.5820 |
_version_ | 1783310371523657728 |
---|---|
author | Feng, Yuan Kawrakow, Iwan Olsen, Jeff Parikh, Parag J. Noel, Camille Wooten, Omar Du, Dongsu Mutic, Sasa Hu, Yanle |
author_facet | Feng, Yuan Kawrakow, Iwan Olsen, Jeff Parikh, Parag J. Noel, Camille Wooten, Omar Du, Dongsu Mutic, Sasa Hu, Yanle |
author_sort | Feng, Yuan |
collection | PubMed |
description | On‐board magnetic resonance (MR) image guidance during radiation therapy offers the potential for more accurate treatment delivery. To utilize the real‐time image information, a crucial prerequisite is the ability to successfully segment and track regions of interest (ROI). The purpose of this work is to evaluate the performance of different segmentation algorithms using motion images (4 frames per second) acquired using a MR image‐guided radiotherapy (MR‐IGRT) system. Manual contours of the kidney, bladder, duodenum, and a liver tumor by an experienced radiation oncologist were used as the ground truth for performance evaluation. Besides the manual segmentation, images were automatically segmented using thresholding, fuzzy k‐means (FKM), k‐harmonic means (KHM), and reaction‐diffusion level set evolution (RD‐LSE) algorithms, as well as the tissue tracking algorithm provided by the ViewRay treatment planning and delivery system (VR‐TPDS). The performance of the five algorithms was evaluated quantitatively by comparing with the manual segmentation using the Dice coefficient and target registration error (TRE) measured as the distance between the centroid of the manual ROI and the centroid of the automatically segmented ROI. All methods were able to successfully segment the bladder and the kidney, but only FKM, KHM, and VR‐TPDS were able to segment the liver tumor and the duodenum. The performance of the thresholding, FKM, KHM, and RD‐LSE algorithms degraded as the local image contrast decreased, whereas the performance of the VP‐TPDS method was nearly independent of local image contrast due to the reference registration algorithm. For segmenting high‐contrast images (i.e., kidney), the thresholding method provided the best speed ([Formula: see text]) with a satisfying accuracy ([Formula: see text]). When the image contrast was low, the VR‐TPDS method had the best automatic contour. Results suggest an image quality determination procedure before segmentation and a combination of different methods for optimal segmentation with the on‐board MR‐IGRT system. PACS number(s): 87.57.nm, 87.57.N‐, 87.61.Tg |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-5875567 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2016 |
publisher | John Wiley and Sons Inc. |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-58755672018-04-02 A comparative study of automatic image segmentation algorithms for target tracking in MR‐IGRT Feng, Yuan Kawrakow, Iwan Olsen, Jeff Parikh, Parag J. Noel, Camille Wooten, Omar Du, Dongsu Mutic, Sasa Hu, Yanle J Appl Clin Med Phys Radiation Oncology Physics On‐board magnetic resonance (MR) image guidance during radiation therapy offers the potential for more accurate treatment delivery. To utilize the real‐time image information, a crucial prerequisite is the ability to successfully segment and track regions of interest (ROI). The purpose of this work is to evaluate the performance of different segmentation algorithms using motion images (4 frames per second) acquired using a MR image‐guided radiotherapy (MR‐IGRT) system. Manual contours of the kidney, bladder, duodenum, and a liver tumor by an experienced radiation oncologist were used as the ground truth for performance evaluation. Besides the manual segmentation, images were automatically segmented using thresholding, fuzzy k‐means (FKM), k‐harmonic means (KHM), and reaction‐diffusion level set evolution (RD‐LSE) algorithms, as well as the tissue tracking algorithm provided by the ViewRay treatment planning and delivery system (VR‐TPDS). The performance of the five algorithms was evaluated quantitatively by comparing with the manual segmentation using the Dice coefficient and target registration error (TRE) measured as the distance between the centroid of the manual ROI and the centroid of the automatically segmented ROI. All methods were able to successfully segment the bladder and the kidney, but only FKM, KHM, and VR‐TPDS were able to segment the liver tumor and the duodenum. The performance of the thresholding, FKM, KHM, and RD‐LSE algorithms degraded as the local image contrast decreased, whereas the performance of the VP‐TPDS method was nearly independent of local image contrast due to the reference registration algorithm. For segmenting high‐contrast images (i.e., kidney), the thresholding method provided the best speed ([Formula: see text]) with a satisfying accuracy ([Formula: see text]). When the image contrast was low, the VR‐TPDS method had the best automatic contour. Results suggest an image quality determination procedure before segmentation and a combination of different methods for optimal segmentation with the on‐board MR‐IGRT system. PACS number(s): 87.57.nm, 87.57.N‐, 87.61.Tg John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2016-03-08 /pmc/articles/PMC5875567/ /pubmed/27074465 http://dx.doi.org/10.1120/jacmp.v17i2.5820 Text en © 2016 The Authors. This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. |
spellingShingle | Radiation Oncology Physics Feng, Yuan Kawrakow, Iwan Olsen, Jeff Parikh, Parag J. Noel, Camille Wooten, Omar Du, Dongsu Mutic, Sasa Hu, Yanle A comparative study of automatic image segmentation algorithms for target tracking in MR‐IGRT |
title | A comparative study of automatic image segmentation algorithms for target tracking in MR‐IGRT |
title_full | A comparative study of automatic image segmentation algorithms for target tracking in MR‐IGRT |
title_fullStr | A comparative study of automatic image segmentation algorithms for target tracking in MR‐IGRT |
title_full_unstemmed | A comparative study of automatic image segmentation algorithms for target tracking in MR‐IGRT |
title_short | A comparative study of automatic image segmentation algorithms for target tracking in MR‐IGRT |
title_sort | comparative study of automatic image segmentation algorithms for target tracking in mr‐igrt |
topic | Radiation Oncology Physics |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5875567/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27074465 http://dx.doi.org/10.1120/jacmp.v17i2.5820 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT fengyuan acomparativestudyofautomaticimagesegmentationalgorithmsfortargettrackinginmrigrt AT kawrakowiwan acomparativestudyofautomaticimagesegmentationalgorithmsfortargettrackinginmrigrt AT olsenjeff acomparativestudyofautomaticimagesegmentationalgorithmsfortargettrackinginmrigrt AT parikhparagj acomparativestudyofautomaticimagesegmentationalgorithmsfortargettrackinginmrigrt AT noelcamille acomparativestudyofautomaticimagesegmentationalgorithmsfortargettrackinginmrigrt AT wootenomar acomparativestudyofautomaticimagesegmentationalgorithmsfortargettrackinginmrigrt AT dudongsu acomparativestudyofautomaticimagesegmentationalgorithmsfortargettrackinginmrigrt AT muticsasa acomparativestudyofautomaticimagesegmentationalgorithmsfortargettrackinginmrigrt AT huyanle acomparativestudyofautomaticimagesegmentationalgorithmsfortargettrackinginmrigrt AT fengyuan comparativestudyofautomaticimagesegmentationalgorithmsfortargettrackinginmrigrt AT kawrakowiwan comparativestudyofautomaticimagesegmentationalgorithmsfortargettrackinginmrigrt AT olsenjeff comparativestudyofautomaticimagesegmentationalgorithmsfortargettrackinginmrigrt AT parikhparagj comparativestudyofautomaticimagesegmentationalgorithmsfortargettrackinginmrigrt AT noelcamille comparativestudyofautomaticimagesegmentationalgorithmsfortargettrackinginmrigrt AT wootenomar comparativestudyofautomaticimagesegmentationalgorithmsfortargettrackinginmrigrt AT dudongsu comparativestudyofautomaticimagesegmentationalgorithmsfortargettrackinginmrigrt AT muticsasa comparativestudyofautomaticimagesegmentationalgorithmsfortargettrackinginmrigrt AT huyanle comparativestudyofautomaticimagesegmentationalgorithmsfortargettrackinginmrigrt |