Cargando…

Variability in accuracy of prostate cancer segmentation among radiologists, urologists, and scientists

BACKGROUND: There is increasing research in using segmentation of prostate cancer to create a digital 3D model from magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans for purposes of education or surgical planning. However, the variation in segmentation of prostate cancer among users and potential inaccuracy ha...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Chen, Michael Y., Woodruff, Maria A., Dasgupta, Prokar, Rukin, Nicholas J.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7541146/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32810385
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/cam4.3386
_version_ 1783591346362122240
author Chen, Michael Y.
Woodruff, Maria A.
Dasgupta, Prokar
Rukin, Nicholas J.
author_facet Chen, Michael Y.
Woodruff, Maria A.
Dasgupta, Prokar
Rukin, Nicholas J.
author_sort Chen, Michael Y.
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: There is increasing research in using segmentation of prostate cancer to create a digital 3D model from magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans for purposes of education or surgical planning. However, the variation in segmentation of prostate cancer among users and potential inaccuracy has not been studied. METHODS: Four consultant radiologists, four consultant urologists, four urology trainees, and four nonclinician segmentation scientists were asked to segment a single slice of a lateral T3 prostate tumor on MRI (“Prostate 1”), an anterior zone prostate tumor MRI (“Prostate 2”), and a kidney tumor computed tomography (CT) scan (“Kidney”). Time taken and self‐rated subjective accuracy out of a maximum score of 10 were recorded. Root mean square error, Dice coefficient, Matthews correlation coefficient, Jaccard index, specificity, and sensitivity were calculated using the radiologists as the ground truth. RESULTS: There was high variance among the radiologists in segmentation of Prostate 1 and 2 tumors with mean Dice coefficients of 0.81 and 0.58, respectively, compared to 0.96 for the kidney tumor. Urologists and urology trainees had similar accuracy, while nonclinicians had the lowest accuracy scores for Prostate 1 and 2 tumors (0.60 and 0.47) but similar for kidney tumor (0.95). Mean sensitivity in Prostate 1 (0.63) and Prostate 2 (0.61) was lower than specificity (0.92 and 0.93) suggesting under‐segmentation of tumors in the non‐radiologist groups. Participants spent less time on the kidney tumor segmentation and self‐rated accuracy was higher than both prostate tumors. CONCLUSION: Segmentation of prostate cancers is more difficult than other anatomy such as kidney tumors. Less experienced participants appear to under‐segment models and underestimate the size of prostate tumors. Segmentation of prostate cancer is highly variable even among radiologists, and 3D modeling for clinical use must be performed with caution. Further work to develop a methodology to maximize segmentation accuracy is needed.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7541146
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-75411462020-10-09 Variability in accuracy of prostate cancer segmentation among radiologists, urologists, and scientists Chen, Michael Y. Woodruff, Maria A. Dasgupta, Prokar Rukin, Nicholas J. Cancer Med Clinical Cancer Research BACKGROUND: There is increasing research in using segmentation of prostate cancer to create a digital 3D model from magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans for purposes of education or surgical planning. However, the variation in segmentation of prostate cancer among users and potential inaccuracy has not been studied. METHODS: Four consultant radiologists, four consultant urologists, four urology trainees, and four nonclinician segmentation scientists were asked to segment a single slice of a lateral T3 prostate tumor on MRI (“Prostate 1”), an anterior zone prostate tumor MRI (“Prostate 2”), and a kidney tumor computed tomography (CT) scan (“Kidney”). Time taken and self‐rated subjective accuracy out of a maximum score of 10 were recorded. Root mean square error, Dice coefficient, Matthews correlation coefficient, Jaccard index, specificity, and sensitivity were calculated using the radiologists as the ground truth. RESULTS: There was high variance among the radiologists in segmentation of Prostate 1 and 2 tumors with mean Dice coefficients of 0.81 and 0.58, respectively, compared to 0.96 for the kidney tumor. Urologists and urology trainees had similar accuracy, while nonclinicians had the lowest accuracy scores for Prostate 1 and 2 tumors (0.60 and 0.47) but similar for kidney tumor (0.95). Mean sensitivity in Prostate 1 (0.63) and Prostate 2 (0.61) was lower than specificity (0.92 and 0.93) suggesting under‐segmentation of tumors in the non‐radiologist groups. Participants spent less time on the kidney tumor segmentation and self‐rated accuracy was higher than both prostate tumors. CONCLUSION: Segmentation of prostate cancers is more difficult than other anatomy such as kidney tumors. Less experienced participants appear to under‐segment models and underestimate the size of prostate tumors. Segmentation of prostate cancer is highly variable even among radiologists, and 3D modeling for clinical use must be performed with caution. Further work to develop a methodology to maximize segmentation accuracy is needed. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2020-08-18 /pmc/articles/PMC7541146/ /pubmed/32810385 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/cam4.3386 Text en © 2020 The Authors. Cancer Medicine published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Clinical Cancer Research
Chen, Michael Y.
Woodruff, Maria A.
Dasgupta, Prokar
Rukin, Nicholas J.
Variability in accuracy of prostate cancer segmentation among radiologists, urologists, and scientists
title Variability in accuracy of prostate cancer segmentation among radiologists, urologists, and scientists
title_full Variability in accuracy of prostate cancer segmentation among radiologists, urologists, and scientists
title_fullStr Variability in accuracy of prostate cancer segmentation among radiologists, urologists, and scientists
title_full_unstemmed Variability in accuracy of prostate cancer segmentation among radiologists, urologists, and scientists
title_short Variability in accuracy of prostate cancer segmentation among radiologists, urologists, and scientists
title_sort variability in accuracy of prostate cancer segmentation among radiologists, urologists, and scientists
topic Clinical Cancer Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7541146/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32810385
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/cam4.3386
work_keys_str_mv AT chenmichaely variabilityinaccuracyofprostatecancersegmentationamongradiologistsurologistsandscientists
AT woodruffmariaa variabilityinaccuracyofprostatecancersegmentationamongradiologistsurologistsandscientists
AT dasguptaprokar variabilityinaccuracyofprostatecancersegmentationamongradiologistsurologistsandscientists
AT rukinnicholasj variabilityinaccuracyofprostatecancersegmentationamongradiologistsurologistsandscientists