Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36774463›Full record

ArticleBMC medical imaging2023

Comparison of automated segmentation techniques for magnetic resonance images of the prostate.

Lars Johannes Isaksson, Matteo Pepa, Paul Summers, Mattia Zaffaroni, Maria Giulia Vincini, Giulia Corrao, Giovanni Carlo Mazzola, Marco Rotondi, Giuliana Lo Presti, Sara Raimondi and 15 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical imaging, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

25 authors.

Lars Johannes Isaksson *Department of Radiation Oncology, IEO European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, Milan, Italy. larsjohannes.isaksson@ieo.it.
Matteo Pepa *Department of Radiation Oncology, IEO European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, Milan, Italy.
Paul SummersDivision of Radiology, IEO European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, Milan, Italy.
Mattia ZaffaroniDepartment of Radiation Oncology, IEO European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, Milan, Italy. mattia.zaffaroni@ieo.it.
Maria Giulia VinciniDepartment of Radiation Oncology, IEO European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, Milan, Italy.
Giulia CorraoDepartment of Radiation Oncology, IEO European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, Milan, Italy.
Giovanni Carlo MazzolaDepartment of Radiation Oncology, IEO European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, Milan, Italy.
Marco RotondiDepartment of Radiation Oncology, IEO European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, Milan, Italy.
Giuliana Lo PrestiMolecular and Pharmaco-Epidemiology Unit, Department of Experimental Oncology, IEO European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, Milan, Italy.
Sara RaimondiMolecular and Pharmaco-Epidemiology Unit, Department of Experimental Oncology, IEO European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, Milan, Italy.
Sara GandiniMolecular and Pharmaco-Epidemiology Unit, Department of Experimental Oncology, IEO European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, Milan, Italy.
Stefania VolpeDepartment of Radiation Oncology, IEO European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, Milan, Italy.
Zaharudin HaronRadiology Department, National Cancer Institute, Putrajaya, Malaysia.
Sarah AlessiDivision of Radiology, IEO European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, Milan, Italy.
Paola PricoloDivision of Radiology, IEO European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, Milan, Italy.
Francesco Alessandro MistrettaDepartment of Oncology and Hemato-Oncology, University of Milan, Milan, Italy.
Stefano LuzzagoDepartment of Oncology and Hemato-Oncology, University of Milan, Milan, Italy.
Federica CattaniMedical Physics Unit, IEO European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, Milan, Italy.
Gennaro MusiDepartment of Oncology and Hemato-Oncology, University of Milan, Milan, Italy.
Ottavio De CobelliDepartment of Oncology and Hemato-Oncology, University of Milan, Milan, Italy.
Marta CremonesiRadiation Research Unit, IEO European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, Milan, Italy.
Roberto OrecchiaScientific Direction, IEO European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, Milan, Italy.
Giulia MarvasoDepartment of Radiation Oncology, IEO European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, Milan, Italy.
Giuseppe Petralia *Department of Oncology and Hemato-Oncology, University of Milan, Milan, Italy.
Barbara Alicja Jereczek-Fossa *Department of Radiation Oncology, IEO European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, Milan, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundContouring 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.

methodsThis 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.

resultsThe 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.

conclusionsDeep 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).

Indexed as

ProstateProstatic NeoplasmsAlgorithmsHumansImage Processing, Computer-AssistedMagnetic Resonance ImagingMaleDeep learningMedical imageMRIProstateSegmentation

Identifiers

PMID36774463
PMCPMC9921124

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.