Affiliations 

  • 1 Department of Radiation Oncology, IEO European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, Milan, Italy. larsjohannes.isaksson@ieo.it
  • 2 Department of Radiation Oncology, IEO European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, Milan, Italy
  • 3 Division of Radiology, IEO European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, Milan, Italy
  • 4 Department of Radiation Oncology, IEO European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, Milan, Italy. mattia.zaffaroni@ieo.it
  • 5 Molecular and Pharmaco-Epidemiology Unit, Department of Experimental Oncology, IEO European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, Milan, Italy
  • 6 Radiology Department, National Cancer Institute, Putrajaya, Malaysia
  • 7 Department of Oncology and Hemato-Oncology, University of Milan, Milan, Italy
  • 8 Medical Physics Unit, IEO European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, Milan, Italy
  • 9 Radiation Research Unit, IEO European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, Milan, Italy
  • 10 Scientific Direction, IEO European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, Milan, Italy
BMC Med Imaging, 2023 Feb 11;23(1):32.
PMID: 36774463 DOI: 10.1186/s12880-023-00974-y

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Contouring of anatomical regions is a crucial step in the medical workflow and is both time-consuming and prone to intra- and inter-observer variability. This study compares different strategies for automatic segmentation of the prostate in T2-weighted MRIs.

METHODS: This study included 100 patients diagnosed with prostate adenocarcinoma who had undergone multi-parametric MRI and prostatectomy. From the T2-weighted MR images, ground truth segmentation masks were established by consensus from two expert radiologists. The prostate was then automatically contoured with six different methods: (1) a multi-atlas algorithm, (2) a proprietary algorithm in the Syngo.Via medical imaging software, and four deep learning models: (3) a V-net trained from scratch, (4) a pre-trained 2D U-net, (5) a GAN extension of the 2D U-net, and (6) a segmentation-adapted EfficientDet architecture. The resulting segmentations were compared and scored against the ground truth masks with one 70/30 and one 50/50 train/test data split. We also analyzed the association between segmentation performance and clinical variables.

RESULTS: The best performing method was the adapted EfficientDet (model 6), achieving a mean Dice coefficient of 0.914, a mean absolute volume difference of 5.9%, a mean surface distance (MSD) of 1.93 pixels, and a mean 95th percentile Hausdorff distance of 3.77 pixels. The deep learning models were less prone to serious errors (0.854 minimum Dice and 4.02 maximum MSD), and no significant relationship was found between segmentation performance and clinical variables.

CONCLUSIONS: Deep learning-based segmentation techniques can consistently achieve Dice coefficients of 0.9 or above with as few as 50 training patients, regardless of architectural archetype. The atlas-based and Syngo.via methods found in commercial clinical software performed significantly worse (0.855[Formula: see text]0.887 Dice).

* Title and MeSH Headings from MEDLINE®/PubMed®, a database of the U.S. National Library of Medicine.