错误:搜索内容不能为空,请输入英文关键词
错误:关键词超出字数限制,请精简
高级检索

Automated prostate gland segmentation in challenging clinical cases: comparison of three artificial intelligence methods

  • Latrice A. Johnson,
  • Stephanie A. Harmon,
  • Enis C. Yilmaz,
  • Yue Lin,
  • Mason J. Belue,
  • Katie M. Merriman,
  • Nathan S. Lay,
  • Thomas H. Sanford,
  • Karthik V. Sarma,
  • Corey W. Arnold,
  • Ziyue Xu,
  • Holger R. Roth,
  • Dong Yang,
  • Jesse Tetreault,
  • Daguang Xu,
  • Krishnan R. Patel,
  • Sandeep Gurram,
  • Bradford J. Wood,
  • Deborah E. Citrin,
  • Peter A. Pinto,
  • Peter L. Choyke,
  • Baris Turkbey

摘要

Objective

Automated methods for prostate segmentation on MRI are typically developed under ideal scanning and anatomical conditions. This study evaluates three different prostate segmentation AI algorithms in a challenging population of patients with prior treatments, variable anatomic characteristics, complex clinical history, or atypical MRI acquisition parameters.

Materials and methods

A single institution retrospective database was queried for the following conditions at prostate MRI: prior prostate-specific oncologic treatment, transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP), abdominal perineal resection (APR), hip prosthesis (HP), diversity of prostate volumes (large ≥ 150 cc, small ≤ 25 cc), whole gland tumor burden, magnet strength, noted poor quality, and various scanners (outside/vendors). Final inclusion criteria required availability of axial T2-weighted (T2W) sequence and corresponding prostate organ segmentation from an expert radiologist. Three previously developed algorithms were evaluated: (1) deep learning (DL)-based model, (2) commercially available shape-based model, and (3) federated DL-based model. Dice Similarity Coefficient (DSC) was calculated compared to expert. DSC by model and scan factors were evaluated with Wilcox signed-rank test and linear mixed effects (LMER) model.

Results

683 scans (651 patients) met inclusion criteria (mean prostate volume 60.1 cc [9.05–329 cc]). Overall DSC scores for models 1, 2, and 3 were 0.916 (0.707–0.971), 0.873 (0–0.997), and 0.894 (0.025–0.961), respectively, with DL-based models demonstrating significantly higher performance (p < 0.01). In sub-group analysis by factors, Model 1 outperformed Model 2 (all p < 0.05) and Model 3 (all p < 0.001). Performance of all models was negatively impacted by prostate volume and poor signal quality (p < 0.01). Shape-based factors influenced DL models (p < 0.001) while signal factors influenced all (p < 0.001).

Conclusion

Factors affecting anatomical and signal conditions of the prostate gland can adversely impact both DL and non-deep learning-based segmentation models.