Karunanayake N, Lu L, Yang H, Geng P, Akin O, Furberg H, Schwartz LH, Zhao B. Dual-Stage AI Model for Enhanced CT Imaging: Precision Segmentation of Kidney and Tumors.
Tomography 2025;
11:3. [PMID:
39852683 PMCID:
PMC11769543 DOI:
10.3390/tomography11010003]
[Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/06/2024] [Revised: 12/16/2024] [Accepted: 12/21/2024] [Indexed: 01/26/2025] Open
Abstract
OBJECTIVES
Accurate kidney and tumor segmentation of computed tomography (CT) scans is vital for diagnosis and treatment, but manual methods are time-consuming and inconsistent, highlighting the value of AI automation. This study develops a fully automated AI model using vision transformers (ViTs) and convolutional neural networks (CNNs) to detect and segment kidneys and kidney tumors in Contrast-Enhanced (CECT) scans, with a focus on improving sensitivity for small, indistinct tumors.
METHODS
The segmentation framework employs a ViT-based model for the kidney organ, followed by a 3D UNet model with enhanced connections and attention mechanisms for tumor detection and segmentation. Two CECT datasets were used: a public dataset (KiTS23: 489 scans) and a private institutional dataset (Private: 592 scans). The AI model was trained on 389 public scans, with validation performed on the remaining 100 scans and external validation performed on all 592 private scans. Tumors were categorized by TNM staging as small (≤4 cm) (KiTS23: 54%, Private: 41%), medium (>4 cm to ≤7 cm) (KiTS23: 24%, Private: 35%), and large (>7 cm) (KiTS23: 22%, Private: 24%) for detailed evaluation.
RESULTS
Kidney and kidney tumor segmentations were evaluated against manual annotations as the reference standard. The model achieved a Dice score of 0.97 ± 0.02 for kidney organ segmentation. For tumor detection and segmentation on the KiTS23 dataset, the sensitivities and average false-positive rates per patient were as follows: 0.90 and 0.23 for small tumors, 1.0 and 0.08 for medium tumors, and 0.96 and 0.04 for large tumors. The corresponding Dice scores were 0.84 ± 0.11, 0.89 ± 0.07, and 0.91 ± 0.06, respectively. External validation on the private data confirmed the model's effectiveness, achieving the following sensitivities and average false-positive rates per patient: 0.89 and 0.15 for small tumors, 0.99 and 0.03 for medium tumors, and 1.0 and 0.01 for large tumors. The corresponding Dice scores were 0.84 ± 0.08, 0.89 ± 0.08, and 0.92 ± 0.06.
CONCLUSIONS
The proposed model demonstrates consistent and robust performance in segmenting kidneys and kidney tumors of various sizes, with effective generalization to unseen data. This underscores the model's significant potential for clinical integration, offering enhanced diagnostic precision and reliability in radiological assessments.
Collapse