Cargando…

Workflow for automatic renal perfusion quantification using ASL‐MRI and machine learning

PURPOSE: Clinical applicability of renal arterial spin labeling (ASL) MRI is hampered because of time consuming and observer dependent post‐processing, including manual segmentation of the cortex to obtain cortical renal blood flow (RBF). Machine learning has proven its value in medical image segmen...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Bones, Isabell K., Bos, Clemens, Moonen, Chrit, Hendrikse, Jeroen, van Stralen, Marijn
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9297892/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34672029
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/mrm.29016
_version_ 1784750573945356288
author Bones, Isabell K.
Bos, Clemens
Moonen, Chrit
Hendrikse, Jeroen
van Stralen, Marijn
author_facet Bones, Isabell K.
Bos, Clemens
Moonen, Chrit
Hendrikse, Jeroen
van Stralen, Marijn
author_sort Bones, Isabell K.
collection PubMed
description PURPOSE: Clinical applicability of renal arterial spin labeling (ASL) MRI is hampered because of time consuming and observer dependent post‐processing, including manual segmentation of the cortex to obtain cortical renal blood flow (RBF). Machine learning has proven its value in medical image segmentation, including the kidneys. This study presents a fully automatic workflow for renal cortex perfusion quantification by including machine learning‐based segmentation. METHODS: Fully automatic workflow was achieved by construction of a cascade of 3 U‐nets to replace manual segmentation in ASL quantification. All 1.5T ASL‐MRI data, including M(0), T(1), and ASL label‐control images, from 10 healthy volunteers was used for training (dataset 1). Trained cascade performance was validated on 4 additional volunteers (dataset 2). Manual segmentations were generated by 2 observers, yielding reference and second observer segmentations. To validate the intended use of the automatic segmentations, manual and automatic RBF values in mL/min/100 g were compared. RESULTS: Good agreement was found between automatic and manual segmentations on dataset 1 (dice score = 0.78 ± 0.04), which was in line with inter‐observer variability (dice score = 0.77 ± 0.02). Good agreement was confirmed on dataset 2 (dice score = 0.75 ± 0.03). Moreover, similar cortical RBF was obtained with automatic or manual segmentations, on average and at subject level; with 211 ± 31 mL/min/100 g and 208 ± 31 mL/min/100 g (P < .05), respectively, with narrow limits of agreement at −11 and 4.6 mL/min/100 g. RBF accuracy with automated segmentations was confirmed on dataset 2. CONCLUSION: Our proposed method automates ASL quantification without compromising RBF accuracy. With quick processing and without observer dependence, renal ASL‐MRI is more attractive for clinical application as well as for longitudinal and multi‐center studies.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9297892
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-92978922022-07-21 Workflow for automatic renal perfusion quantification using ASL‐MRI and machine learning Bones, Isabell K. Bos, Clemens Moonen, Chrit Hendrikse, Jeroen van Stralen, Marijn Magn Reson Med Technical Notes—Imaging Methodology PURPOSE: Clinical applicability of renal arterial spin labeling (ASL) MRI is hampered because of time consuming and observer dependent post‐processing, including manual segmentation of the cortex to obtain cortical renal blood flow (RBF). Machine learning has proven its value in medical image segmentation, including the kidneys. This study presents a fully automatic workflow for renal cortex perfusion quantification by including machine learning‐based segmentation. METHODS: Fully automatic workflow was achieved by construction of a cascade of 3 U‐nets to replace manual segmentation in ASL quantification. All 1.5T ASL‐MRI data, including M(0), T(1), and ASL label‐control images, from 10 healthy volunteers was used for training (dataset 1). Trained cascade performance was validated on 4 additional volunteers (dataset 2). Manual segmentations were generated by 2 observers, yielding reference and second observer segmentations. To validate the intended use of the automatic segmentations, manual and automatic RBF values in mL/min/100 g were compared. RESULTS: Good agreement was found between automatic and manual segmentations on dataset 1 (dice score = 0.78 ± 0.04), which was in line with inter‐observer variability (dice score = 0.77 ± 0.02). Good agreement was confirmed on dataset 2 (dice score = 0.75 ± 0.03). Moreover, similar cortical RBF was obtained with automatic or manual segmentations, on average and at subject level; with 211 ± 31 mL/min/100 g and 208 ± 31 mL/min/100 g (P < .05), respectively, with narrow limits of agreement at −11 and 4.6 mL/min/100 g. RBF accuracy with automated segmentations was confirmed on dataset 2. CONCLUSION: Our proposed method automates ASL quantification without compromising RBF accuracy. With quick processing and without observer dependence, renal ASL‐MRI is more attractive for clinical application as well as for longitudinal and multi‐center studies. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2021-10-20 2022-02 /pmc/articles/PMC9297892/ /pubmed/34672029 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/mrm.29016 Text en © 2021 The Authors. Magnetic Resonance in Medicine published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of International Society for Magnetic Resonance in Medicine https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited and is not used for commercial purposes.
spellingShingle Technical Notes—Imaging Methodology
Bones, Isabell K.
Bos, Clemens
Moonen, Chrit
Hendrikse, Jeroen
van Stralen, Marijn
Workflow for automatic renal perfusion quantification using ASL‐MRI and machine learning
title Workflow for automatic renal perfusion quantification using ASL‐MRI and machine learning
title_full Workflow for automatic renal perfusion quantification using ASL‐MRI and machine learning
title_fullStr Workflow for automatic renal perfusion quantification using ASL‐MRI and machine learning
title_full_unstemmed Workflow for automatic renal perfusion quantification using ASL‐MRI and machine learning
title_short Workflow for automatic renal perfusion quantification using ASL‐MRI and machine learning
title_sort workflow for automatic renal perfusion quantification using asl‐mri and machine learning
topic Technical Notes—Imaging Methodology
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9297892/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34672029
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/mrm.29016
work_keys_str_mv AT bonesisabellk workflowforautomaticrenalperfusionquantificationusingaslmriandmachinelearning
AT bosclemens workflowforautomaticrenalperfusionquantificationusingaslmriandmachinelearning
AT moonenchrit workflowforautomaticrenalperfusionquantificationusingaslmriandmachinelearning
AT hendriksejeroen workflowforautomaticrenalperfusionquantificationusingaslmriandmachinelearning
AT vanstralenmarijn workflowforautomaticrenalperfusionquantificationusingaslmriandmachinelearning