Abstract

.Purpose: Deep learning (DL) algorithms have shown promising results for brain tumor segmentation in MRI. However, validation is required prior to routine clinical use. We report the first randomized and blinded comparison of DL and trained technician segmentations.Approach: We compiled a multi-institutional database of 741 pretreatment MRI exams. Each contained a postcontrast T1-weighted exam, a T2-weighted fluid-attenuated inversion recovery exam, and at least one technician-derived tumor segmentation. The database included 729 unique patients (470 males and 259 females). Of these exams, 641 were used for training the DL system, and 100 were reserved for testing. We developed a platform to enable qualitative, blinded, controlled assessment of lesion segmentations made by technicians and the DL method. On this platform, 20 neuroradiologists performed 400 side-by-side comparisons of segmentations on 100 test cases. They scored each segmentation between 0 (poor) and 10 (perfect). Agreement between segmentations from technicians and the DL method was also evaluated quantitatively using the Dice coefficient, which produces values between 0 (no overlap) and 1 (perfect overlap).Results: The neuroradiologists gave technician and DL segmentations mean scores of 6.97 and 7.31, respectively (). The DL method achieved a mean Dice coefficient of 0.87 on the test cases.Conclusions: This was the first objective comparison of automated and human segmentation using a blinded controlled assessment study. Our DL system learned to outperform its “human teachers” and produced output that was better, on average, than its training data.

Highlights

  • Applications of deep learning (DL) in medical imaging have proliferated in the last few years

  • DL systems have proved effective for segmenting organs and lesions in MRI and CT image volumes

  • Each included study was processed using the following fully automated pipeline: (1) the MRI volumes and brain tumor segmentation files were copied from the database; (2) the extracted data were verified to ensure completeness; (3) the fluid-attenuated inversion recovery (FLAIR) volume was rigidly coregistered to the T1 postcontrast (T1c) volume using the SimpleElastix framework;[18] (4) each volume was resampled to a common voxel spacing of 1 × 1 × 2 mm ðx; y; zÞ

Read more

Summary

Results

Our study included 741 exams from 729 unique patients. The 741 exams had the following sex distribution: 451 males, 262 females, and 28 unspecified sex. The cohort contained 19 different tumor types (Table 2). The neuroradiologist scores for the technician and DL segmentations had median values of 7 and 8 and mean (± standard error) values of 6.97 Æ 0.12 and 7.31 Æ 0.13, respectively (Fig. 4).

Introduction
Materials and Methods
Preprocessing
Network Architecture and Training
Neuroradiologist Review
Discussion
Radiation therapy oncology group
Heidelberg14
Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.