Cargando…
Comparison of automated segmentation techniques for magnetic resonance images of the prostate
BACKGROUND: Contouring of anatomical regions is a crucial step in the medical workflow and is both time-consuming and prone to intra- and inter-observer variability. This study compares different strategies for automatic segmentation of the prostate in T2-weighted MRIs. METHODS: This study included...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2023
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9921124/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36774463 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12880-023-00974-y |
_version_ | 1784887236361191424 |
---|---|
author | Isaksson, Lars Johannes Pepa, Matteo Summers, Paul Zaffaroni, Mattia Vincini, Maria Giulia Corrao, Giulia Mazzola, Giovanni Carlo Rotondi, Marco Lo Presti, Giuliana Raimondi, Sara Gandini, Sara Volpe, Stefania Haron, Zaharudin Alessi, Sarah Pricolo, Paola Mistretta, Francesco Alessandro Luzzago, Stefano Cattani, Federica Musi, Gennaro Cobelli, Ottavio De Cremonesi, Marta Orecchia, Roberto Marvaso, Giulia Petralia, Giuseppe Jereczek-Fossa, Barbara Alicja |
author_facet | Isaksson, Lars Johannes Pepa, Matteo Summers, Paul Zaffaroni, Mattia Vincini, Maria Giulia Corrao, Giulia Mazzola, Giovanni Carlo Rotondi, Marco Lo Presti, Giuliana Raimondi, Sara Gandini, Sara Volpe, Stefania Haron, Zaharudin Alessi, Sarah Pricolo, Paola Mistretta, Francesco Alessandro Luzzago, Stefano Cattani, Federica Musi, Gennaro Cobelli, Ottavio De Cremonesi, Marta Orecchia, Roberto Marvaso, Giulia Petralia, Giuseppe Jereczek-Fossa, Barbara Alicja |
author_sort | Isaksson, Lars Johannes |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Contouring of anatomical regions is a crucial step in the medical workflow and is both time-consuming and prone to intra- and inter-observer variability. This study compares different strategies for automatic segmentation of the prostate in T2-weighted MRIs. METHODS: This study included 100 patients diagnosed with prostate adenocarcinoma who had undergone multi-parametric MRI and prostatectomy. From the T2-weighted MR images, ground truth segmentation masks were established by consensus from two expert radiologists. The prostate was then automatically contoured with six different methods: (1) a multi-atlas algorithm, (2) a proprietary algorithm in the Syngo.Via medical imaging software, and four deep learning models: (3) a V-net trained from scratch, (4) a pre-trained 2D U-net, (5) a GAN extension of the 2D U-net, and (6) a segmentation-adapted EfficientDet architecture. The resulting segmentations were compared and scored against the ground truth masks with one 70/30 and one 50/50 train/test data split. We also analyzed the association between segmentation performance and clinical variables. RESULTS: The best performing method was the adapted EfficientDet (model 6), achieving a mean Dice coefficient of 0.914, a mean absolute volume difference of 5.9%, a mean surface distance (MSD) of 1.93 pixels, and a mean 95th percentile Hausdorff distance of 3.77 pixels. The deep learning models were less prone to serious errors (0.854 minimum Dice and 4.02 maximum MSD), and no significant relationship was found between segmentation performance and clinical variables. CONCLUSIONS: Deep learning-based segmentation techniques can consistently achieve Dice coefficients of 0.9 or above with as few as 50 training patients, regardless of architectural archetype. The atlas-based and Syngo.via methods found in commercial clinical software performed significantly worse (0.855[Formula: see text]0.887 Dice). |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-9921124 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2023 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-99211242023-02-12 Comparison of automated segmentation techniques for magnetic resonance images of the prostate Isaksson, Lars Johannes Pepa, Matteo Summers, Paul Zaffaroni, Mattia Vincini, Maria Giulia Corrao, Giulia Mazzola, Giovanni Carlo Rotondi, Marco Lo Presti, Giuliana Raimondi, Sara Gandini, Sara Volpe, Stefania Haron, Zaharudin Alessi, Sarah Pricolo, Paola Mistretta, Francesco Alessandro Luzzago, Stefano Cattani, Federica Musi, Gennaro Cobelli, Ottavio De Cremonesi, Marta Orecchia, Roberto Marvaso, Giulia Petralia, Giuseppe Jereczek-Fossa, Barbara Alicja BMC Med Imaging Research BACKGROUND: Contouring of anatomical regions is a crucial step in the medical workflow and is both time-consuming and prone to intra- and inter-observer variability. This study compares different strategies for automatic segmentation of the prostate in T2-weighted MRIs. METHODS: This study included 100 patients diagnosed with prostate adenocarcinoma who had undergone multi-parametric MRI and prostatectomy. From the T2-weighted MR images, ground truth segmentation masks were established by consensus from two expert radiologists. The prostate was then automatically contoured with six different methods: (1) a multi-atlas algorithm, (2) a proprietary algorithm in the Syngo.Via medical imaging software, and four deep learning models: (3) a V-net trained from scratch, (4) a pre-trained 2D U-net, (5) a GAN extension of the 2D U-net, and (6) a segmentation-adapted EfficientDet architecture. The resulting segmentations were compared and scored against the ground truth masks with one 70/30 and one 50/50 train/test data split. We also analyzed the association between segmentation performance and clinical variables. RESULTS: The best performing method was the adapted EfficientDet (model 6), achieving a mean Dice coefficient of 0.914, a mean absolute volume difference of 5.9%, a mean surface distance (MSD) of 1.93 pixels, and a mean 95th percentile Hausdorff distance of 3.77 pixels. The deep learning models were less prone to serious errors (0.854 minimum Dice and 4.02 maximum MSD), and no significant relationship was found between segmentation performance and clinical variables. CONCLUSIONS: Deep learning-based segmentation techniques can consistently achieve Dice coefficients of 0.9 or above with as few as 50 training patients, regardless of architectural archetype. The atlas-based and Syngo.via methods found in commercial clinical software performed significantly worse (0.855[Formula: see text]0.887 Dice). BioMed Central 2023-02-11 /pmc/articles/PMC9921124/ /pubmed/36774463 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12880-023-00974-y Text en © The Author(s) 2023 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data. |
spellingShingle | Research Isaksson, Lars Johannes Pepa, Matteo Summers, Paul Zaffaroni, Mattia Vincini, Maria Giulia Corrao, Giulia Mazzola, Giovanni Carlo Rotondi, Marco Lo Presti, Giuliana Raimondi, Sara Gandini, Sara Volpe, Stefania Haron, Zaharudin Alessi, Sarah Pricolo, Paola Mistretta, Francesco Alessandro Luzzago, Stefano Cattani, Federica Musi, Gennaro Cobelli, Ottavio De Cremonesi, Marta Orecchia, Roberto Marvaso, Giulia Petralia, Giuseppe Jereczek-Fossa, Barbara Alicja Comparison of automated segmentation techniques for magnetic resonance images of the prostate |
title | Comparison of automated segmentation techniques for magnetic resonance images of the prostate |
title_full | Comparison of automated segmentation techniques for magnetic resonance images of the prostate |
title_fullStr | Comparison of automated segmentation techniques for magnetic resonance images of the prostate |
title_full_unstemmed | Comparison of automated segmentation techniques for magnetic resonance images of the prostate |
title_short | Comparison of automated segmentation techniques for magnetic resonance images of the prostate |
title_sort | comparison of automated segmentation techniques for magnetic resonance images of the prostate |
topic | Research |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9921124/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36774463 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12880-023-00974-y |
work_keys_str_mv | AT isakssonlarsjohannes comparisonofautomatedsegmentationtechniquesformagneticresonanceimagesoftheprostate AT pepamatteo comparisonofautomatedsegmentationtechniquesformagneticresonanceimagesoftheprostate AT summerspaul comparisonofautomatedsegmentationtechniquesformagneticresonanceimagesoftheprostate AT zaffaronimattia comparisonofautomatedsegmentationtechniquesformagneticresonanceimagesoftheprostate AT vincinimariagiulia comparisonofautomatedsegmentationtechniquesformagneticresonanceimagesoftheprostate AT corraogiulia comparisonofautomatedsegmentationtechniquesformagneticresonanceimagesoftheprostate AT mazzolagiovannicarlo comparisonofautomatedsegmentationtechniquesformagneticresonanceimagesoftheprostate AT rotondimarco comparisonofautomatedsegmentationtechniquesformagneticresonanceimagesoftheprostate AT loprestigiuliana comparisonofautomatedsegmentationtechniquesformagneticresonanceimagesoftheprostate AT raimondisara comparisonofautomatedsegmentationtechniquesformagneticresonanceimagesoftheprostate AT gandinisara comparisonofautomatedsegmentationtechniquesformagneticresonanceimagesoftheprostate AT volpestefania comparisonofautomatedsegmentationtechniquesformagneticresonanceimagesoftheprostate AT haronzaharudin comparisonofautomatedsegmentationtechniquesformagneticresonanceimagesoftheprostate AT alessisarah comparisonofautomatedsegmentationtechniquesformagneticresonanceimagesoftheprostate AT pricolopaola comparisonofautomatedsegmentationtechniquesformagneticresonanceimagesoftheprostate AT mistrettafrancescoalessandro comparisonofautomatedsegmentationtechniquesformagneticresonanceimagesoftheprostate AT luzzagostefano comparisonofautomatedsegmentationtechniquesformagneticresonanceimagesoftheprostate AT cattanifederica comparisonofautomatedsegmentationtechniquesformagneticresonanceimagesoftheprostate AT musigennaro comparisonofautomatedsegmentationtechniquesformagneticresonanceimagesoftheprostate AT cobelliottaviode comparisonofautomatedsegmentationtechniquesformagneticresonanceimagesoftheprostate AT cremonesimarta comparisonofautomatedsegmentationtechniquesformagneticresonanceimagesoftheprostate AT orecchiaroberto comparisonofautomatedsegmentationtechniquesformagneticresonanceimagesoftheprostate AT marvasogiulia comparisonofautomatedsegmentationtechniquesformagneticresonanceimagesoftheprostate AT petraliagiuseppe comparisonofautomatedsegmentationtechniquesformagneticresonanceimagesoftheprostate AT jereczekfossabarbaraalicja comparisonofautomatedsegmentationtechniquesformagneticresonanceimagesoftheprostate |