Deep learning-based segmentation of prostatic urethra on computed tomography scans for treatment planning.
Deep learning segmentation
Intraprostatic urethra
OAR segmentation
Prostate cancer radiotherapy
Urinary toxicity
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 2023
Apr 2023
Historique:
received:
15
11
2022
revised:
08
03
2023
accepted:
14
03
2023
medline:
4
4
2023
entrez:
3
4
2023
pubmed:
4
4
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The intraprostatic urethra is an organ at risk in prostate cancer radiotherapy, but its segmentation in computed tomography (CT) is challenging. This work sought to: i) propose an automatic pipeline for intraprostatic urethra segmentation in CT, ii) analyze the dose to the urethra, iii) compare the predictions to magnetic resonance (MR) contours. First, we trained Deep Learning networks to segment the rectum, bladder, prostate, and seminal vesicles. Then, the proposed Deep Learning Urethra Segmentation model was trained with the bladder and prostate distance transforms and 44 labeled CT with visible catheters. The evaluation was performed on 11 datasets, calculating centerline distance (CLD) and percentage of centerline within 3.5 and 5 mm. We applied this method to a dataset of 32 patients treated with intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) to quantify the urethral dose. Finally, we compared predicted intraprostatic urethra contours to manual delineations in MR for 15 patients without catheter. A mean CLD of 1.6 ± 0.8 mm for the whole urethra and 1.7 ± 1.4, 1.5 ± 0.9, and 1.7 ± 0.9 mm for the top, middle, and bottom thirds were obtained in CT. On average, 94% and 97% of the segmented centerlines were within a 3.5 mm and 5 mm radius, respectively. In IMRT, the urethra received a higher dose than the overall prostate. We also found a slight deviation between the predicted and manual MR delineations. A fully-automatic segmentation pipeline was validated to delineate the intraprostatic urethra in CT images.
Sections du résumé
Background and purpose
UNASSIGNED
The intraprostatic urethra is an organ at risk in prostate cancer radiotherapy, but its segmentation in computed tomography (CT) is challenging. This work sought to: i) propose an automatic pipeline for intraprostatic urethra segmentation in CT, ii) analyze the dose to the urethra, iii) compare the predictions to magnetic resonance (MR) contours.
Materials and methods
UNASSIGNED
First, we trained Deep Learning networks to segment the rectum, bladder, prostate, and seminal vesicles. Then, the proposed Deep Learning Urethra Segmentation model was trained with the bladder and prostate distance transforms and 44 labeled CT with visible catheters. The evaluation was performed on 11 datasets, calculating centerline distance (CLD) and percentage of centerline within 3.5 and 5 mm. We applied this method to a dataset of 32 patients treated with intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) to quantify the urethral dose. Finally, we compared predicted intraprostatic urethra contours to manual delineations in MR for 15 patients without catheter.
Results
UNASSIGNED
A mean CLD of 1.6 ± 0.8 mm for the whole urethra and 1.7 ± 1.4, 1.5 ± 0.9, and 1.7 ± 0.9 mm for the top, middle, and bottom thirds were obtained in CT. On average, 94% and 97% of the segmented centerlines were within a 3.5 mm and 5 mm radius, respectively. In IMRT, the urethra received a higher dose than the overall prostate. We also found a slight deviation between the predicted and manual MR delineations.
Conclusion
UNASSIGNED
A fully-automatic segmentation pipeline was validated to delineate the intraprostatic urethra in CT images.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37007914
doi: 10.1016/j.phro.2023.100431
pii: S2405-6316(23)00022-2
pmc: PMC10064422
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
100431Informations de copyright
© 2023 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
Med Image Anal. 2019 May;54:168-178
pubmed: 30928830
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2011 Feb 1;79(2):363-70
pubmed: 21195875
Front Oncol. 2016 May 18;6:122
pubmed: 27242962
Med Phys. 2020 Jul;47(7):3023-3031
pubmed: 32201958
Nat Methods. 2021 Feb;18(2):203-211
pubmed: 33288961
Front Oncol. 2021 May 14;11:652678
pubmed: 34055621
Sci Rep. 2021 Jun 1;11(1):11480
pubmed: 34075061
Phys Med Biol. 2018 Dec 14;63(24):245015
pubmed: 30523973
Radiother Oncol. 2020 Apr;145:1-6
pubmed: 31869676
Front Oncol. 2022 Mar 29;12:863655
pubmed: 35433469
Acad Radiol. 2022 Sep;29(9):1404-1412
pubmed: 35183438
Radiother Oncol. 2017 Dec;125(3):492-499
pubmed: 29031609
CA Cancer J Clin. 2022 Jan;72(1):7-33
pubmed: 35020204
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2005 Mar 15;61(4):1019-34
pubmed: 15752881
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2002 Nov 15;54(4):1235-42
pubmed: 12419453
Radiother Oncol. 2016 Jan;118(1):79-84
pubmed: 26702990
Med Image Anal. 2021 Aug;72:102101
pubmed: 34111573
Nat Rev Urol. 2019 Jul;16(7):391-403
pubmed: 31092914
Med Phys. 2018 Apr;45(4):1369-1378
pubmed: 29474748
Front Oncol. 2020 Jul 23;10:1207
pubmed: 32850354
IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 2019 Feb;38(2):585-595
pubmed: 30176583
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2019 Jun 1;104(2):343-354
pubmed: 30716523
Radiother Oncol. 2020 Jun;147:40-49
pubmed: 32224316
Phys Med Biol. 2019 Jul 02;64(13):135001
pubmed: 31181561
Med Phys. 2000 Mar;27(3):448-51
pubmed: 10757596
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2022 Jan 1;112(1):75-82
pubmed: 34711459
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2022 May 1;113(1):92-95
pubmed: 35427561
Phys Imaging Radiat Oncol. 2021 Mar 26;18:1-4
pubmed: 34258400
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1995 Mar 30;31(5):1257-80
pubmed: 7713787
Adv Radiat Oncol. 2020 Feb 08;5(3):473-481
pubmed: 32529143