Mistelbauer G, Morar A, Schernthaner R, Strassl A, Fleischmann D, Moldoveanu F, Gröller ME. Semi-automatic vessel detection for challenging cases of peripheral arterial disease.
Comput Biol Med 2021;
133:104344. [PMID:
33915360 DOI:
10.1016/j.compbiomed.2021.104344]
[Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/09/2020] [Revised: 02/26/2021] [Accepted: 03/12/2021] [Indexed: 12/19/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVES
Manual or semi-automated segmentation of the lower extremity arterial tree in patients with Peripheral arterial disease (PAD) remains a notoriously difficult and time-consuming task. The complex manifestations of the disease, including discontinuities of the vascular flow channels, the presence of calcified atherosclerotic plaque in close vicinity to adjacent bone, and the presence of metal or other imaging artifacts currently preclude fully automated vessel identification. New machine learning techniques may alleviate this challenge, but require large and reasonably well segmented training data.
METHODS
We propose a novel semi-automatic vessel tracking approach for peripheral arteries to facilitate and accelerate the creation of annotated training data by expert cardiovascular radiologists or technologists, while limiting the number of necessary manual interactions, and reducing processing time. After automatically classifying blood vessels, bones, and other tissue, the relevant vessels are tracked and organized in a tree-like structure for further visualization.
RESULTS
We conducted a pilot (N = 9) and a clinical study (N = 24) in which we assess the accuracy and required time for our approach to achieve sufficient quality for clinical application, with our current clinically established workflow as the standard of reference. Our approach enabled expert physicians to readily identify all clinically relevant lower extremity arteries, even in problematic cases, with an average sensitivity of 92.9%, and an average specificity and overall accuracy of 99.9%.
CONCLUSIONS
Compared to the clinical workflow in our collaborating hospitals (28:40 ± 7:45 [mm:ss]), our approach (17:24 ± 6:44 [mm:ss]) is on average 11:16 [mm:ss] (39%) faster.
Collapse