Cargando…
Automatic segmentation of prostate zonal anatomy on MRI: a systematic review of the literature
OBJECTIVES: Accurate zonal segmentation of prostate boundaries on MRI is a critical prerequisite for automated prostate cancer detection based on PI-RADS. Many articles have been published describing deep learning methods offering great promise for fast and accurate segmentation of prostate zonal an...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Springer Vienna
2022
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9772373/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36543901 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13244-022-01340-2 |
Sumario: | OBJECTIVES: Accurate zonal segmentation of prostate boundaries on MRI is a critical prerequisite for automated prostate cancer detection based on PI-RADS. Many articles have been published describing deep learning methods offering great promise for fast and accurate segmentation of prostate zonal anatomy. The objective of this review was to provide a detailed analysis and comparison of applicability and efficiency of the published methods for automatic segmentation of prostate zonal anatomy by systematically reviewing the current literature. METHODS: A Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) was conducted until June 30, 2021, using PubMed, ScienceDirect, Web of Science and EMBase databases. Risk of bias and applicability based on Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 (QUADAS-2) criteria adjusted with Checklist for Artificial Intelligence in Medical Imaging (CLAIM) were assessed. RESULTS: A total of 458 articles were identified, and 33 were included and reviewed. Only 2 articles had a low risk of bias for all four QUADAS-2 domains. In the remaining, insufficient details about database constitution and segmentation protocol provided sources of bias (inclusion criteria, MRI acquisition, ground truth). Eighteen different types of terminology for prostate zone segmentation were found, while 4 anatomic zones are described on MRI. Only 2 authors used a blinded reading, and 4 assessed inter-observer variability. CONCLUSIONS: Our review identified numerous methodological flaws and underlined biases precluding us from performing quantitative analysis for this review. This implies low robustness and low applicability in clinical practice of the evaluated methods. Actually, there is not yet consensus on quality criteria for database constitution and zonal segmentation methodology. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13244-022-01340-2. |
---|