1
|
Polymeri E, Johnsson ÅA, Enqvist O, Ulén J, Pettersson N, Nordström F, Kindblom J, Trägårdh E, Edenbrandt L, Kjölhede H. Artificial Intelligence-Based Organ Delineation for Radiation Treatment Planning of Prostate Cancer on Computed Tomography. Adv Radiat Oncol 2024; 9:101383. [PMID: 38495038 PMCID: PMC10943520 DOI: 10.1016/j.adro.2023.101383] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/19/2023] [Accepted: 08/30/2023] [Indexed: 03/19/2024] Open
Abstract
Purpose Meticulous manual delineations of the prostate and the surrounding organs at risk are necessary for prostate cancer radiation therapy to avoid side effects to the latter. This process is time consuming and hampered by inter- and intraobserver variability, all of which could be alleviated by artificial intelligence (AI). This study aimed to evaluate the performance of AI compared with manual organ delineations on computed tomography (CT) scans for radiation treatment planning. Methods and Materials Manual delineations of the prostate, urinary bladder, and rectum of 1530 patients with prostate cancer who received curative radiation therapy from 2006 to 2018 were included. Approximately 50% of those CT scans were used as a training set, 25% as a validation set, and 25% as a test set. Patients with hip prostheses were excluded because of metal artifacts. After training and fine-tuning with the validation set, automated delineations of the prostate and organs at risk were obtained for the test set. Sørensen-Dice similarity coefficient, mean surface distance, and Hausdorff distance were used to evaluate the agreement between the manual and automated delineations. Results The median Sørensen-Dice similarity coefficient between the manual and AI delineations was 0.82, 0.95, and 0.88 for the prostate, urinary bladder, and rectum, respectively. The median mean surface distance and Hausdorff distance were 1.7 and 9.2 mm for the prostate, 0.7 and 6.7 mm for the urinary bladder, and 1.1 and 13.5 mm for the rectum, respectively. Conclusions Automated CT-based organ delineation for prostate cancer radiation treatment planning is feasible and shows good agreement with manually performed contouring.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Eirini Polymeri
- Department of Radiology, Institute of Clinical Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden
- Department of Radiology, Region Västra Götaland, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Gothenburg, Sweden
| | - Åse A. Johnsson
- Department of Radiology, Institute of Clinical Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden
- Department of Radiology, Region Västra Götaland, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Gothenburg, Sweden
| | - Olof Enqvist
- Department of Electrical Engineering, Region Västra Götaland, Chalmers University of Technology, Gothenburg, Sweden
- Eigenvision AB, Malmö, Sweden
| | | | - Niclas Pettersson
- Department of Medical Radiation Sciences, Institute of Clinical Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden
- Department of Medical Physics and Biomedical Engineering, Region Västra Götaland, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Gothenburg, Sweden
| | - Fredrik Nordström
- Department of Medical Radiation Sciences, Institute of Clinical Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden
- Department of Medical Physics and Biomedical Engineering, Region Västra Götaland, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Gothenburg, Sweden
| | - Jon Kindblom
- Department of Oncology, Region Västra Götaland, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Gothenburg, Sweden
| | - Elin Trägårdh
- Department of Clinical Physiology and Nuclear Medicine, Lund University and Skåne University Hospital, Malmö, Sweden
| | - Lars Edenbrandt
- Department of Molecular and Clinical Medicine, Institute of Medicine, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden
- Department of Clinical Physiology, Region Västra Götaland, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Gothenburg, Sweden
| | - Henrik Kjölhede
- Department of Urology, Institute of Clinical Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden
- Department of Urology, Region Västra Götaland, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Gothenburg, Sweden
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Molière S, Hamzaoui D, Granger B, Montagne S, Allera A, Ezziane M, Luzurier A, Quint R, Kalai M, Ayache N, Delingette H, Renard-Penna R. Reference standard for the evaluation of automatic segmentation algorithms: Quantification of inter observer variability of manual delineation of prostate contour on MRI. Diagn Interv Imaging 2024; 105:65-73. [PMID: 37822196 DOI: 10.1016/j.diii.2023.08.001] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/02/2023] [Revised: 07/28/2023] [Accepted: 08/01/2023] [Indexed: 10/13/2023]
Abstract
PURPOSE The purpose of this study was to investigate the relationship between inter-reader variability in manual prostate contour segmentation on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) examinations and determine the optimal number of readers required to establish a reliable reference standard. MATERIALS AND METHODS Seven radiologists with various experiences independently performed manual segmentation of the prostate contour (whole-gland [WG] and transition zone [TZ]) on 40 prostate MRI examinations obtained in 40 patients. Inter-reader variability in prostate contour delineations was estimated using standard metrics (Dice similarity coefficient [DSC], Hausdorff distance and volume-based metrics). The impact of the number of readers (from two to seven) on segmentation variability was assessed using pairwise metrics (consistency) and metrics with respect to a reference segmentation (conformity), obtained either with majority voting or simultaneous truth and performance level estimation (STAPLE) algorithm. RESULTS The average segmentation DSC for two readers in pairwise comparison was 0.919 for WG and 0.876 for TZ. Variability decreased with the number of readers: the interquartile ranges of the DSC were 0.076 (WG) / 0.021 (TZ) for configurations with two readers, 0.005 (WG) / 0.012 (TZ) for configurations with three readers, and 0.002 (WG) / 0.0037 (TZ) for configurations with six readers. The interquartile range decreased slightly faster between two and three readers than between three and six readers. When using consensus methods, variability often reached its minimum with three readers (with STAPLE, DSC = 0.96 [range: 0.945-0.971] for WG and DSC = 0.94 [range: 0.912-0.957] for TZ, and interquartile range was minimal for configurations with three readers. CONCLUSION The number of readers affects the inter-reader variability, in terms of inter-reader consistency and conformity to a reference. Variability is minimal for three readers, or three readers represent a tipping point in the variability evolution, with both pairwise-based metrics or metrics with respect to a reference. Accordingly, three readers may represent an optimal number to determine references for artificial intelligence applications.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sébastien Molière
- Department of Radiology, Hôpitaux Universitaire de Strasbourg, Hôpital de Hautepierre, 67200, Strasbourg, France; Breast and Thyroid Imaging Unit, Institut de Cancérologie Strasbourg Europe, 67200, Strasbourg, France; IGBMC, Institut de Génétique et de Biologie Moléculaire et Cellulaire, 67400, Illkirch, France.
| | - Dimitri Hamzaoui
- Inria, Epione Team, Sophia Antipolis, Université Côte d'Azur, 06902, Nice, France
| | - Benjamin Granger
- Sorbonne Université, INSERM, Institut Pierre Louis d'Epidémiologie et de Santé Publique, IPLESP, AP-HP, Hôpital Pitié Salpêtrière, Département de Santé Publique, 75013, Paris, France
| | - Sarah Montagne
- Department of Radiology, Hôpital Tenon, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, 75020, Paris, France; Department of Radiology, Hôpital Pitié-Salpétrière, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, 75013, Paris, France; GRC N° 5, Oncotype-Uro, Sorbonne Université, 75020, Paris, France
| | - Alexandre Allera
- Department of Radiology, Hôpital Pitié-Salpétrière, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, 75013, Paris, France
| | - Malek Ezziane
- Department of Radiology, Hôpital Pitié-Salpétrière, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, 75013, Paris, France
| | - Anna Luzurier
- Department of Radiology, Hôpital Pitié-Salpétrière, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, 75013, Paris, France
| | - Raphaelle Quint
- Department of Radiology, Hôpital Pitié-Salpétrière, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, 75013, Paris, France
| | - Mehdi Kalai
- Department of Radiology, Hôpital Pitié-Salpétrière, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, 75013, Paris, France
| | - Nicholas Ayache
- Department of Radiology, Hôpitaux Universitaire de Strasbourg, Hôpital de Hautepierre, 67200, Strasbourg, France
| | - Hervé Delingette
- Department of Radiology, Hôpitaux Universitaire de Strasbourg, Hôpital de Hautepierre, 67200, Strasbourg, France
| | - Raphaële Renard-Penna
- Department of Radiology, Hôpital Tenon, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, 75020, Paris, France; Department of Radiology, Hôpital Pitié-Salpétrière, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, 75013, Paris, France; GRC N° 5, Oncotype-Uro, Sorbonne Université, 75020, Paris, France
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Sanders JW, Tang C, Kudchadker RJ, Venkatesan AM, Mok H, Hanania AN, Thames HD, Bruno TL, Starks C, Santiago E, Cunningham M, Frank SJ. Uncertainty in magnetic resonance imaging-based prostate postimplant dosimetry: Results of a 10-person human observer study, and comparisons with automatic postimplant dosimetry. Brachytherapy 2023; 22:822-832. [PMID: 37716820 DOI: 10.1016/j.brachy.2023.08.001] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/04/2022] [Revised: 04/03/2023] [Accepted: 08/02/2023] [Indexed: 09/18/2023]
Abstract
PURPOSE Uncertainties in postimplant quality assessment (QA) for low-dose-rate prostate brachytherapy (LDRPBT) are introduced at two steps: seed localization and contouring. We quantified how interobserver variability (IoV) introduced in both steps impacts dose-volume-histogram (DVH) parameters for MRI-based LDRPBT, and compared it with automatically derived DVH parameters. METHODS AND MATERIALS Twenty-five patients received MRI-based LDRPBT. Seven clinical observers contoured the prostate and four organs at risk, and 4 dosimetrists performed seed localization, on each MRI. Twenty-eight unique manual postimplant QAs were created for each patient from unique observer pairs. Reference QA and automatic QA were also performed for each patient. IoV of prostate, rectum, and external urinary sphincter (EUS) DVH parameters owing to seed localization and contouring was quantified with coefficients of variation. Automatically derived DVH parameters were compared with those of the reference plans. RESULTS Coefficients of variation (CoVs) owing to contouring variability (CoVcontours) were significantly higher than those due to seed localization variability (CoVseeds) (median CoVcontours vs. median CoVseeds: prostate D90-15.12% vs. 0.65%, p < 0.001; prostate V100-5.36% vs. 0.37%, p < 0.001; rectum V100-79.23% vs. 8.69%, p < 0.001; EUS V200-107.74% vs. 21.18%, p < 0.001). CoVcontours were lower when the contouring observers were restricted to the 3 radiation oncologists, but were still markedly higher than CoVseeds. Median differences in prostate D90, prostate V100, rectum V100, and EUS V200 between automatically computed and reference dosimetry parameters were 3.16%, 1.63%, -0.00 mL, and -0.00 mL, respectively. CONCLUSIONS Seed localization introduces substantially less variability in postimplant QA than does contouring for MRI-based LDRPBT. While automatic seed localization may potentially help improve workflow efficiency, it has limited potential for improving the consistency and quality of postimplant dosimetry.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jeremiah W Sanders
- Department of Imaging Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX.
| | - Chad Tang
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - Rajat J Kudchadker
- Department of Radiation Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - Aradhana M Venkatesan
- Department of Diagnostic Radiology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - Henry Mok
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | | | - Howard D Thames
- Department of Biostatistics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - Teresa L Bruno
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - Christine Starks
- Department of Radiation Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - Edwin Santiago
- Department of Radiation Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - Mandy Cunningham
- Department of Radiation Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - Steven J Frank
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
He M, Cao Y, Chi C, Yang X, Ramin R, Wang S, Yang G, Mukhtorov O, Zhang L, Kazantsev A, Enikeev M, Hu K. Research progress on deep learning in magnetic resonance imaging-based diagnosis and treatment of prostate cancer: a review on the current status and perspectives. Front Oncol 2023; 13:1189370. [PMID: 37546423 PMCID: PMC10400334 DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2023.1189370] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/19/2023] [Accepted: 05/30/2023] [Indexed: 08/08/2023] Open
Abstract
Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) has emerged as a first-line screening and diagnostic tool for prostate cancer, aiding in treatment selection and noninvasive radiotherapy guidance. However, the manual interpretation of MRI data is challenging and time-consuming, which may impact sensitivity and specificity. With recent technological advances, artificial intelligence (AI) in the form of computer-aided diagnosis (CAD) based on MRI data has been applied to prostate cancer diagnosis and treatment. Among AI techniques, deep learning involving convolutional neural networks contributes to detection, segmentation, scoring, grading, and prognostic evaluation of prostate cancer. CAD systems have automatic operation, rapid processing, and accuracy, incorporating multiple sequences of multiparametric MRI data of the prostate gland into the deep learning model. Thus, they have become a research direction of great interest, especially in smart healthcare. This review highlights the current progress of deep learning technology in MRI-based diagnosis and treatment of prostate cancer. The key elements of deep learning-based MRI image processing in CAD systems and radiotherapy of prostate cancer are briefly described, making it understandable not only for radiologists but also for general physicians without specialized imaging interpretation training. Deep learning technology enables lesion identification, detection, and segmentation, grading and scoring of prostate cancer, and prediction of postoperative recurrence and prognostic outcomes. The diagnostic accuracy of deep learning can be improved by optimizing models and algorithms, expanding medical database resources, and combining multi-omics data and comprehensive analysis of various morphological data. Deep learning has the potential to become the key diagnostic method in prostate cancer diagnosis and treatment in the future.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Mingze He
- Institute for Urology and Reproductive Health, I.M. Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University (Sechenov University), Moscow, Russia
| | - Yu Cao
- I.M. Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University (Sechenov University), Moscow, Russia
| | - Changliang Chi
- Department of Urology, The First Hospital of Jilin University (Lequn Branch), Changchun, Jilin, China
| | - Xinyi Yang
- I.M. Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University (Sechenov University), Moscow, Russia
| | - Rzayev Ramin
- Department of Radiology, The Second University Clinic, I.M. Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University (Sechenov University), Moscow, Russia
| | - Shuowen Wang
- I.M. Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University (Sechenov University), Moscow, Russia
| | - Guodong Yang
- I.M. Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University (Sechenov University), Moscow, Russia
| | - Otabek Mukhtorov
- Regional State Budgetary Health Care Institution, Kostroma Regional Clinical Hospital named after Korolev E.I. Avenue Mira, Kostroma, Russia
| | - Liqun Zhang
- School of Biomedical Engineering, Faculty of Medicine, Dalian University of Technology, Dalian, Liaoning, China
| | - Anton Kazantsev
- Regional State Budgetary Health Care Institution, Kostroma Regional Clinical Hospital named after Korolev E.I. Avenue Mira, Kostroma, Russia
| | - Mikhail Enikeev
- Institute for Urology and Reproductive Health, I.M. Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University (Sechenov University), Moscow, Russia
| | - Kebang Hu
- Department of Urology, The First Hospital of Jilin University (Lequn Branch), Changchun, Jilin, China
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Sanders JW, Kudchadker RJ, Tang C, Mok H, Venkatesan AM, Thames HD, Frank SJ. Prospective Evaluation of Prostate and Organs at Risk Segmentation Software for MRI-based Prostate Radiation Therapy. Radiol Artif Intell 2022; 4:e210151. [PMID: 35391775 PMCID: PMC8980936 DOI: 10.1148/ryai.210151] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/14/2021] [Revised: 12/20/2021] [Accepted: 01/05/2022] [Indexed: 12/24/2022]
Abstract
The segmentation of the prostate and surrounding organs at risk (OARs) is a necessary workflow step for performing dose-volume histogram analyses of prostate radiation therapy procedures. Low-dose-rate prostate brachytherapy (LDRPBT) is a curative prostate radiation therapy treatment that delivers a single fraction of radiation over a period of days. Prior studies have demonstrated the feasibility of fully convolutional networks to segment the prostate and surrounding OARs for LDRPBT dose-volume histogram analyses. However, performance evaluations have been limited to measures of global similarity between algorithm predictions and a reference. To date, the clinical use of automatic segmentation algorithms for LDRPBT has not been evaluated, to the authors' knowledge. The purpose of this work was to assess the performance of fully convolutional networks for prostate and OAR delineation on a prospectively identified cohort of patients who underwent LDRPBT by using clinically relevant metrics. Thirty patients underwent LDRPBT and were imaged with fully balanced steady-state free precession MRI after implantation. Custom automatic segmentation software was used to segment the prostate and four OARs. Dose-volume histogram analyses were performed by using both the original automatically generated contours and the physician-refined contours. Dosimetry parameters of the prostate, external urinary sphincter, and rectum were compared without and with the physician refinements. This study observed that physician refinements to the automatic contours did not significantly affect dosimetry parameters. Keywords: MRI, Neural Networks, Radiation Therapy, Radiation Therapy/Oncology, Genital/Reproductive, Prostate, Segmentation, Dosimetry Supplemental material is available for this article. © RSNA, 2022.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jeremiah W. Sanders
- From the Departments of Imaging Physics (J.W.S.), Radiation Physics
(R.J.K.), Radiation Oncology (C.T., H.M., S.J.F.), Diagnostic Radiology
(A.M.V.), and Biostatistics (H.D.T.), The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer
Center, 1515 Holcombe Blvd, Houston, TX 77030
| | - Rajat J. Kudchadker
- From the Departments of Imaging Physics (J.W.S.), Radiation Physics
(R.J.K.), Radiation Oncology (C.T., H.M., S.J.F.), Diagnostic Radiology
(A.M.V.), and Biostatistics (H.D.T.), The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer
Center, 1515 Holcombe Blvd, Houston, TX 77030
| | - Chad Tang
- From the Departments of Imaging Physics (J.W.S.), Radiation Physics
(R.J.K.), Radiation Oncology (C.T., H.M., S.J.F.), Diagnostic Radiology
(A.M.V.), and Biostatistics (H.D.T.), The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer
Center, 1515 Holcombe Blvd, Houston, TX 77030
| | - Henry Mok
- From the Departments of Imaging Physics (J.W.S.), Radiation Physics
(R.J.K.), Radiation Oncology (C.T., H.M., S.J.F.), Diagnostic Radiology
(A.M.V.), and Biostatistics (H.D.T.), The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer
Center, 1515 Holcombe Blvd, Houston, TX 77030
| | - Aradhana M. Venkatesan
- From the Departments of Imaging Physics (J.W.S.), Radiation Physics
(R.J.K.), Radiation Oncology (C.T., H.M., S.J.F.), Diagnostic Radiology
(A.M.V.), and Biostatistics (H.D.T.), The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer
Center, 1515 Holcombe Blvd, Houston, TX 77030
| | - Howard D. Thames
- From the Departments of Imaging Physics (J.W.S.), Radiation Physics
(R.J.K.), Radiation Oncology (C.T., H.M., S.J.F.), Diagnostic Radiology
(A.M.V.), and Biostatistics (H.D.T.), The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer
Center, 1515 Holcombe Blvd, Houston, TX 77030
| | - Steven J. Frank
- From the Departments of Imaging Physics (J.W.S.), Radiation Physics
(R.J.K.), Radiation Oncology (C.T., H.M., S.J.F.), Diagnostic Radiology
(A.M.V.), and Biostatistics (H.D.T.), The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer
Center, 1515 Holcombe Blvd, Houston, TX 77030
| |
Collapse
|