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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: 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
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