Semi-automatic tumor segmentation of rectal cancer based on functional magnetic resonance imaging.

ADA, Adaptive boosting DICE, Sørensen-Dice similarity coefficient DME, Dynamic multi echo DW, Diffusion weighted IQR, Interquartile range LDA, Linear discriminant analysis MED, Median MRI, Magnetic resonance imaging MSD, Mean symmetric surface distance QDA, Quadratic discriminant analysis SVM, Support vector machines

Journal

Physics and imaging in radiation oncology
ISSN: 2405-6316
Titre abrégé: Phys Imaging Radiat Oncol
Pays: Netherlands
ID NLM: 101704276

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
Apr 2022
Historique:
received: 19 12 2021
revised: 01 05 2022
accepted: 02 05 2022
entrez: 23 5 2022
pubmed: 24 5 2022
medline: 24 5 2022
Statut: epublish

Résumé

Tumor delineation is required both for radiotherapy planning and quantitative imaging biomarker purposes. It is a manual, time- and labor-intensive process prone to inter- and intraobserver variations. Semi or fully automatic segmentation could provide better efficiency and consistency. This study aimed to investigate the influence of including and combining functional with anatomical magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) sequences on the quality of automatic segmentations. T2-weighted (T2w), diffusion weighted, multi-echo T2*-weighted, and contrast enhanced dynamic multi-echo (DME) MR images of eighty-one patients with rectal cancer were used in the analysis. Four classical machine learning algorithms; adaptive boosting (ADA), linear and quadratic discriminant analysis and support vector machines, were trained for automatic segmentation of tumor and normal tissue using different combinations of the MR images as input, followed by semi-automatic morphological post-processing. Manual delineations from two experts served as ground truth. The Sørensen-Dice similarity coefficient (DICE) and mean symmetric surface distance (MSD) were used as performance metric in leave-one-out cross validation. Using T2w images alone, ADA outperformed the other algorithms, yielding a median per patient DICE of 0.67 and MSD of 3.6 mm. The performance improved when functional images were added and was highest for models based on either T2w and DME images (DICE: 0.72, MSD: 2.7 mm) or all four MRI sequences (DICE: 0.72, MSD: 2.5 mm). Machine learning models using functional MRI, in particular DME, have the potential to improve automatic segmentation of rectal cancer relative to models using T2w MRI alone.

Sections du résumé

Background and purpose UNASSIGNED
Tumor delineation is required both for radiotherapy planning and quantitative imaging biomarker purposes. It is a manual, time- and labor-intensive process prone to inter- and intraobserver variations. Semi or fully automatic segmentation could provide better efficiency and consistency. This study aimed to investigate the influence of including and combining functional with anatomical magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) sequences on the quality of automatic segmentations.
Materials and methods UNASSIGNED
T2-weighted (T2w), diffusion weighted, multi-echo T2*-weighted, and contrast enhanced dynamic multi-echo (DME) MR images of eighty-one patients with rectal cancer were used in the analysis. Four classical machine learning algorithms; adaptive boosting (ADA), linear and quadratic discriminant analysis and support vector machines, were trained for automatic segmentation of tumor and normal tissue using different combinations of the MR images as input, followed by semi-automatic morphological post-processing. Manual delineations from two experts served as ground truth. The Sørensen-Dice similarity coefficient (DICE) and mean symmetric surface distance (MSD) were used as performance metric in leave-one-out cross validation.
Results UNASSIGNED
Using T2w images alone, ADA outperformed the other algorithms, yielding a median per patient DICE of 0.67 and MSD of 3.6 mm. The performance improved when functional images were added and was highest for models based on either T2w and DME images (DICE: 0.72, MSD: 2.7 mm) or all four MRI sequences (DICE: 0.72, MSD: 2.5 mm).
Conclusion UNASSIGNED
Machine learning models using functional MRI, in particular DME, have the potential to improve automatic segmentation of rectal cancer relative to models using T2w MRI alone.

Identifiants

pubmed: 35602548
doi: 10.1016/j.phro.2022.05.001
pii: S2405-6316(22)00041-0
pmc: PMC9114680
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Pagination

77-84

Informations de copyright

© 2022 The Author(s).

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

Références

Clin Cancer Res. 2007 Jun 15;13(12):3449-59
pubmed: 17575207
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2007 Jun;188(6):1622-35
pubmed: 17515386
Neoplasia. 2009 Feb;11(2):102-25
pubmed: 19186405
Radiat Oncol. 2020 Jul 8;15(1):162
pubmed: 32641080
Radiology. 2020 Nov;297(2):352-360
pubmed: 32870132
CA Cancer J Clin. 2021 May;71(3):209-249
pubmed: 33538338
Eur J Radiol. 2017 Oct;95:155-168
pubmed: 28987662
BMC Med Imaging. 2015 Aug 12;15:29
pubmed: 26263899
Radiology. 2021 Feb;298(2):248-260
pubmed: 33350894
Phys Imaging Radiat Oncol. 2022 Mar 07;21:146-152
pubmed: 35284662
Sci Rep. 2017 Jul 13;7(1):5301
pubmed: 28706185
Med Image Anal. 2016 Aug;32:69-83
pubmed: 27054278
Front Oncol. 2020 Oct 08;10:537532
pubmed: 33117678
J Digit Imaging. 2018 Jun;31(3):290-303
pubmed: 29181613
J Med Phys. 2008 Oct;33(4):136-40
pubmed: 19893706
Phys Med Biol. 2021 Mar 04;66(6):065012
pubmed: 33666176
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2016 Mar 15;94(4):824-31
pubmed: 26972655
J Magn Reson Imaging. 2017 Jul;46(1):194-206
pubmed: 28001320
Nat Methods. 2020 Mar;17(3):261-272
pubmed: 32015543
Front Oncol. 2021 May 24;11:670156
pubmed: 34109120
Acta Oncol. 2017 Jun;56(6):806-812
pubmed: 28464746
Br J Radiol. 2020 Oct 01;93(1114):20200543
pubmed: 32877210
Acta Oncol. 2022 Feb;61(2):255-263
pubmed: 34918621
Radiother Oncol. 2020 May;146:66-75
pubmed: 32114268
Radiology. 2010 Dec;257(3):643-52
pubmed: 20858850
Eur Radiol. 2018 Apr;28(4):1465-1475
pubmed: 29043428
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2005 Jul 1;62(3):893-900
pubmed: 15936575

Auteurs

Franziska Knuth (F)

Department of Physics, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Høgskoleringen 5, 7491 Trondheim, Norway.

Aurora R Groendahl (AR)

Faculty of Science and Technology, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Drøbakveien 31, 1432 Ås, Norway.

René M Winter (RM)

Department of Physics, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Høgskoleringen 5, 7491 Trondheim, Norway.

Turid Torheim (T)

Department of Informatics, University of Oslo, Gaustadalléen 23 B, 0373 Oslo, Norway.
Institute for Cancer Genetics and Informatics, Oslo University Hospital, Ullernchausséen 64, 0379 Oslo, Norway.

Anne Negård (A)

Department of Radiology, Akershus University Hospital, Sykehusveien 25, 1478 Nordbyhagen, Norway.
Institute of Clinical Medicine, University of Oslo, Kirkeveien 166, 0450 Oslo, Norway.

Stein Harald Holmedal (SH)

Department of Radiology, Akershus University Hospital, Sykehusveien 25, 1478 Nordbyhagen, Norway.

Kine Mari Bakke (KM)

Institute of Clinical Medicine, University of Oslo, Kirkeveien 166, 0450 Oslo, Norway.
Department of Oncology, Akershus University Hospital, Sykehusveien 25, 1478 Nordbyhagen, Norway.

Sebastian Meltzer (S)

Department of Oncology, Akershus University Hospital, Sykehusveien 25, 1478 Nordbyhagen, Norway.

Cecilia M Futsæther (CM)

Faculty of Science and Technology, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Drøbakveien 31, 1432 Ås, Norway.

Kathrine R Redalen (KR)

Department of Physics, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Høgskoleringen 5, 7491 Trondheim, Norway.

Classifications MeSH