Multi-atlas-based auto-segmentation for prostatic urethra using novel prediction of deformable image registration accuracy.
auto-segmentation
deformable image registration
machine learning
prostate cancer
radiotherapy
Journal
Medical physics
ISSN: 2473-4209
Titre abrégé: Med Phys
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 0425746
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Jul 2020
Jul 2020
Historique:
received:
21
02
2019
revised:
04
02
2020
accepted:
14
03
2020
pubmed:
24
3
2020
medline:
15
5
2021
entrez:
24
3
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Accurate identification of the prostatic urethra and bladder can help determine dosing and evaluate urinary toxicity during intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) planning in patients with localized prostate cancer. However, it is challenging to locate the prostatic urethra in planning computed tomography (pCT). In the present study, we developed a multiatlas-based auto-segmentation method for prostatic urethra identification using deformable image registration accuracy prediction with machine learning (ML) and assessed its feasibility. We examined 120 patients with prostate cancer treated with IMRT. All patients underwent temporary urinary catheter placement for identification and contouring of the prostatic urethra in pCT images (ground truth). Our method comprises the following three steps: (a) select four atlas datasets from the atlas datasets using the deformable image registration (DIR) accuracy prediction model, (b) deform them by structure-based DIR, (3) and propagate urethra contour using displacement vector field calculated by the DIR. In (a), for identifying suitable datasets, we used the trained support vector machine regression (SVR) model and five feature descriptors (e.g., prostate volume) to increase DIR accuracy. This method was trained/validated using 100 patients and performance was evaluated within an independent test set of 20 patients. Fivefold cross-validation was used to optimize the hype parameters of the DIR accuracy prediction model. We assessed the accuracy of our method by comparing it with those of two others: Acostas method-based patient selection (previous study method, by Acosta et al.), and the Waterman's method (defines the prostatic urethra based on the center of the prostate, by Waterman et al.). We used the centerlines distance (CLD) between the ground truth and the predicted prostatic urethra as the evaluation index. The CLD in the entire prostatic urethra was 2.09 ± 0.89 mm (our proposed method), 2.77 ± 0.99 mm (Acosta et al., P = 0.022), and 3.47 ± 1.19 mm (Waterman et al., P < 0.001); our proposed method showed the highest accuracy. In segmented CLD, CLD in the top 1/3 segment was highly improved from that of Waterman et.al. and was slightly improved from that of Acosta et.al., with results of 2.49 ± 1.78 mm (our proposed method), 2.95 ± 1.75 mm (Acosta et al., P = 0.42), and 5.76 ± 3.09 mm (Waterman et al., P < 0.001). We developed a DIR accuracy prediction model-based multiatlas-based auto-segmentation method for prostatic urethra identification. Our method identified prostatic urethra with mean error of 2.09 mm, likely due to combined effects of SVR model employment in patient selection, modified atlas dataset characteristics and DIR algorithm. Our method has potential utility in prostate cancer IMRT and can replace use of temporary indwelling urinary catheters.
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
3023-3031Informations de copyright
© 2020 American Association of Physicists in Medicine.
Références
Appenzoller LM, Michalski JM, Thorstad WL, Mutic S, Moore KL. Predicting dose-volume histograms for organs-at-risk in IMRT planning. Med. Phys. 2012;39:7446-7461.
Bortfeld T. IMRT: a review and preview. Phys Med Biol. 2006;51:R363-R379.
Zaorsky NG, Palmer JD, Hurwitz MD, Keith SW, Dicker AP, Den RB. What is the ideal radiotherapy dose to treat prostate cancer? A meta-analysis of biologically equivalent dose escalation. Radiother Oncol. 2015;115:295-300.
Zelefsky MJ, Fuks Z, Hunt M, et al. High dose radiation delivered by intensity modulated conformal radiotherapy improves the outcome of localized prostate cancer. J Urol. 2001;166:876-881.
Al-Mamgani A, van Putten WLJ, Heemsbergen WD, et al. Update of Dutch multicenter dose-escalation trial of radiotherapy for localized prostate cancer. Int. J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2008;72:980-988.
Zietman AL, DeSilvio M, Slater JD, et al. Comparison of convention-dose vs high-dose conformal radiation therapy in clinically localized adenocarcinoma of the prostate. JAMA. 2005;294:1233-1239.
Dearnaley DP, Sydes MR, Graham JD, et al. Escalated-dose versus standard-dose conformal radiotherapy in prostate cancer: first results from the MRC RT01 randomised controlled trial. Lancet Oncol. 2007;8:475-487.
Beckendorf V, Guerif S, Le Prisé E, et al. 70 Gy versus 80 Gy in localized prostate cancer: 5-year results of GETUG 06 randomized trial. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2011;80:1056-1063.
Zelefsky MJ, Fuks Z, Happersett L, et al. Clinical experience with intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) in prostate cancer. Radiother Oncol. 2000;55:241-249.
Zelefsky MJ, Levin EJ, Hunt M, et al. Incidence of late rectal and urinary toxicities after three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy and intensity-modulated radiotherapy for localized prostate cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2008;70:1124-1129.
Zelefsky MJ, Fuks Z, Hunt M, et al. High-dose intensity modulated radiation therapy for prostate cancer: early toxicity and biochemical outcome in 772 patients. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2002;53:1111-1116.
Waterman FM, Dicker AP. Determination of the urethral dose in prostate brachytherapy when the urethra cannot be visualized in the postimplant CT scan. Med Phys. 2000;27:448-451.
Bucci J, Spadinger I, Hilts M, et al. Urethral and periurethral dosimetry in prostate brachytherapy: is there a convenient surrogate? Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2002;54:1235-1242.
Sotiras A, Davatzikos C, Paragios N. Deformable medical image registration: a survey. IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 2013;32:1153-1190.
Yeo UJ, Taylor ML, Supple JR, et al. Is it sensible to “deform” dose 3D experimental validation of dose-warping. Med Phys. 2012;39:5065-5072.
Schaly B, Kempe JA, Bauman GS, Battista JJ, Van Dyk J. Tracking the dose distribution in radiation therapy by accounting for variable anatomy. Phys Med Biol. 2004;49:791-805.
Söhn M, Birkner M, Yan D, Alber M. Modelling individual geometric variation based on dominant eigenmodes of organ deformation: Implementation and evaluation. Phys Med Biol. 2005;50:5893-5908.
Nguyen TN, Moseley JL, Dawson LA, Jaffray DA, Brock KK. Adapting liver motion models using a navigator channel technique. Med Phys. 2009;36:1061-1073.
Aljabar P, Heckemann RA, Hammers A, Hajnal JV, Rueckert D. Multi-atlas based segmentation of brain images: atlas selection and its effect on accuracy. NeuroImage. 2009;46:726-738.
Rohlfing T, Brandt R, Menzel R, Maurer CR. Evaluation of atlas selection strategies for atlas-based image segmentation with application to confocal microscopy images of bee brains. NeuroImage. 2004;21:1428-1442.
Wu M, Rosano C, Lopez-Garcia P, Carter CS, Aizenstein HJ. Optimum template selection for atlas-based segmentation. NeuroImage. 2007;34:1612-1618.
van Rikxoort EM, Isgum I, Arzhaeva Y, et al. Adaptive local multi-atlas segmentation: application to the heart and the caudate nucleus. Med Image Anal. 2010;14:39-49.
Chao KSC, Bhide S, Chen H, et al. Reduce in variation and improve efficiency of target volume delineation by a computer-assisted system using a deformable image registration approach. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2007;68:1512-1521.
Shekhar R, Lei P, Castro-Pareja CR, Plishker WL, D’Souza WD. Automatic segmentation of phase-correlated CT scans through nonrigid image registration using geometrically regularized free-form deformation. Med Phys. 2007;34:3054-3066.
Reed VK, Woodward WA, Zhang L, et al. Automatic segmentation of whole breast using atlas approach and deformable image registration. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2009;73:1493-1500.
Le Troter A, Fouré A, Guye M, et al. Volume measurements of individual muscles in human quadriceps femoris using atlas-based segmentation approaches. Magn Reson Mater Phys Biol Med. 2016;29:245-257.
Klein S, Van Der Heide UA, Lips IM, Van Vulpen M, Staring M, Pluim JPW. Automatic segmentation of the prostate in 3D MR images by atlas matching using localized mutual information. Med Phys. 2008;35:1407-1417.
Xie Q, Ruan D. Low-complexity atlas-based prostate segmentation by combining global, regional, and local metrics. Med Phys. 2014;41:041909.
Acosta O, Mylona E, Le Dain M, et al. Multi-atlas-based segmentation of prostatic urethra from planning CT imaging to quantify dose distribution in prostate cancer radiotherapy. Radiother Oncol. 2017;125:492-499.
Takeda K, Takai Y, Narazaki K, et al. Treatment outcome of high-dose image-guided intensity-modulated radiotherapy using intra-prostate fiducial markers for localized prostate cancer at a single institute in Japan. Radiat Oncol. 2012;7:1-9.
Platt JC. A Fast Algorithm for Training Support Vector Machines, Microsoft Res. (Technical Report MSR-TR-98-14), 1-21; 1998.
Dice LR. Measures of the amount of ecologic association between species. Ecology. 1945;26:297-302.
Schipaanboord B, Boukerroui D, Peressutti D, et al. Can atlas-based auto-segmentation ever be perfect? Insights from extreme value theory. IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 2018;38:99-106.