Journal
EJNMMI RESEARCH
Volume 11, Issue 1, Pages -Publisher
SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1186/s13550-020-00744-9
Keywords
Repeatability; Textural segmentation; Convolutional neural network; Tumor segmentation PET
Funding
- research program STRaTeGy - Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (NWO) [14929]
- Dutch Cancer Society, POINTING Project [10034]
Ask authors/readers for more resources
Two semi-automatic artificial intelligence (AI)-based segmentation methods were compared with conventional approaches, showing better repeatability and accuracy on a lung cancer PET dataset. The algorithms, based on textural feature segmentation and convolutional neural network, outperformed most other conventional methods, making them good candidates for PET tumor segmentation.
Background Positron emission tomography (PET) is routinely used for cancer staging and treatment follow-up. Metabolic active tumor volume (MATV) as well as total MATV (TMATV-including primary tumor, lymph nodes and metastasis) and/or total lesion glycolysis derived from PET images have been identified as prognostic factor or for the evaluation of treatment efficacy in cancer patients. To this end, a segmentation approach with high precision and repeatability is important. However, the implementation of a repeatable and accurate segmentation algorithm remains an ongoing challenge. Methods In this study, we compare two semi-automatic artificial intelligence (AI)-based segmentation methods with conventional semi-automatic segmentation approaches in terms of repeatability. One segmentation approach is based on a textural feature (TF) segmentation approach designed for accurate and repeatable segmentation of primary tumors and metastasis. Moreover, a convolutional neural network (CNN) is trained. The algorithms are trained, validated and tested using a lung cancer PET dataset. The segmentation accuracy of both segmentation approaches is compared using the Jaccard coefficient (JC). Additionally, the approaches are externally tested on a fully independent test-retest dataset. The repeatability of the methods is compared with those of two majority vote (MV2, MV3) approaches, 41%SUVMAX, and a SUV > 4 segmentation (SUV4). Repeatability is assessed with test-retest coefficients (TRT%) and intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). An ICC > 0.9 was regarded as representing excellent repeatability. Results The accuracy of the segmentations with the reference segmentation was good (JC median TF: 0.7, CNN: 0.73). Both segmentation approaches outperformed most other conventional segmentation methods in terms of test-retest coefficient (TRT% mean: TF: 13.0%, CNN: 13.9%, MV2: 14.1%, MV3: 28.1%, 41%SUVMAX: 28.1%, SUV4: 18.1%) and ICC (TF: 0.98, MV2: 0.97, CNN: 0.99, MV3: 0.73, SUV4: 0.81, and 41%SUVMAX: 0.68). Conclusion The semi-automatic AI-based segmentation approaches used in this study provided better repeatability than conventional segmentation approaches. Moreover, both algorithms lead to accurate segmentations for both primary tumors as well as metastasis and are therefore good candidates for PET tumor segmentation.
Authors
I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.
Reviews
Recommended
No Data Available