Literature DB >> 24147502

Fully automated prostate segmentation on MRI: comparison with manual segmentation methods and specimen volumes.

Baris Turkbey1, Sergei V Fotin, Robert J Huang, Yin Yin, Dagane Daar, Omer Aras, Marcelino Bernardo, Brian E Garvey, Juanita Weaver, Hrishikesh Haldankar, Naira Muradyan, Maria J Merino, Peter A Pinto, Senthil Periaswamy, Peter L Choyke.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The objective of our study was to compare calculated prostate volumes derived from tridimensional MR measurements (ellipsoid formula), manual segmentation, and a fully automated segmentation system as validated by actual prostatectomy specimens.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Ninety-eight consecutive patients (median age, 60.6 years; median prostate-specific antigen [PSA] value, 6.85 ng/mL) underwent triplane T2-weighted MRI on a 3-T magnet with an endorectal coil while undergoing diagnostic workup for prostate cancer. Prostate volume estimates were determined using the formula for ellipsoid volume based on tridimensional measurements, manual segmentation of triplane MRI, and automated segmentation based on normalized gradient fields cross-correlation and graph-search refinement. Estimates of prostate volume based on ellipsoid volume, manual segmentation, and automated segmentation were compared with prostatectomy specimen volumes. Prostate volume estimates were compared using the Pearson correlation coefficient and linear regression analysis. The Dice similarity coefficient was used to quantify spatial agreement between manual segmentation and automated segmentation.
RESULTS: The Pearson correlation coefficient revealed strong positive correlation between prostatectomy specimen volume and prostate volume estimates derived from manual segmentation (R = 0.89-0.91, p < 0.0001) and automated segmentation (R = 0.88-0.91, p < 0.0001). No difference was observed between manual segmentation and automated segmentation. Mean partial and full Dice similarity coefficients of 0.92 and 0.89, respectively, were achieved for axial automated segmentation.
CONCLUSION: Prostate volume estimates obtained with a fully automated 3D segmentation tool based on normalized gradient fields cross-correlation and graph-search refinement can yield highly accurate prostate volume estimates in a clinically relevant time of 10 seconds. This tool will assist in developing a broad range of applications including routine prostate volume estimations, image registration, biopsy guidance, and decision support systems.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 24147502     DOI: 10.2214/AJR.12.9712

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol        ISSN: 0361-803X            Impact factor:   3.959


  17 in total

1.  Diagnostic value of MRI-based PSA density in predicting transperineal sector-guided prostate biopsy outcomes.

Authors:  Findlay MacAskill; Su-Min Lee; David Eldred-Evans; Wahyu Wulaningsih; Rick Popert; Konrad Wolfe; Mieke Van Hemelrijck; Giles Rottenberg; Sidath H Liyanage; Peter Acher
Journal:  Int Urol Nephrol       Date:  2017-05-05       Impact factor: 2.370

2.  Automated Segmentation of Tissues Using CT and MRI: A Systematic Review.

Authors:  Leon Lenchik; Laura Heacock; Ashley A Weaver; Robert D Boutin; Tessa S Cook; Jason Itri; Christopher G Filippi; Rao P Gullapalli; James Lee; Marianna Zagurovskaya; Tara Retson; Kendra Godwin; Joey Nicholson; Ponnada A Narayana
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2019-08-10       Impact factor: 3.173

Review 3.  Current Applications and Future Impact of Machine Learning in Radiology.

Authors:  Garry Choy; Omid Khalilzadeh; Mark Michalski; Synho Do; Anthony E Samir; Oleg S Pianykh; J Raymond Geis; Pari V Pandharipande; James A Brink; Keith J Dreyer
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2018-06-26       Impact factor: 11.105

4.  Pathological and 3 Tesla Volumetric Magnetic Resonance Imaging Predictors of Biochemical Recurrence after Robotic Assisted Radical Prostatectomy: Correlation with Whole Mount Histopathology.

Authors:  Nelly Tan; Luyao Shen; Pooria Khoshnoodi; Héctor E Alcalá; Weixia Yu; William Hsu; Robert E Reiter; David Y Lu; Steven S Raman
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2017-11-08       Impact factor: 7.450

Review 5.  Interactive Feature Space Explorer© for multi-modal magnetic resonance imaging.

Authors:  Alpay Özcan; Barış Türkbey; Peter L Choyke; Oguz Akin; Ömer Aras; Seong K Mun
Journal:  Magn Reson Imaging       Date:  2015-04-11       Impact factor: 2.546

6.  Evaluating the size criterion for PI-RADSv2 category 5 upgrade: is 15 mm the best threshold?

Authors:  Julie Y An; Stephanie A Harmon; Sherif Mehralivand; Marcin Czarniecki; Clayton P Smith; Julie A Peretti; Bradford J Wood; Peter A Pinto; Peter L Choyke; Joanna H Shih; Baris Turkbey
Journal:  Abdom Radiol (NY)       Date:  2018-12

7.  Can prostatic arterial embolisation (PAE) reduce the volume of the peripheral zone? MRI evaluation of zonal anatomy and infarction after PAE.

Authors:  Yen-Ting Lin; Grégory Amouyal; Jean-Michel Correas; Héléna Pereira; Olivier Pellerin; Costantino Del Giudice; Carole Déan; Nicolas Thiounn; Marc Sapoval
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2016-01-06       Impact factor: 5.315

8.  Risk of Upgrading from Prostate Biopsy to Radical Prostatectomy Pathology-Does Saturation Biopsy of Index Lesion during Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging-Transrectal Ultrasound Fusion Biopsy Help?

Authors:  Brian P Calio; Abhinav Sidana; Dordaneh Sugano; Sonia Gaur; Mahir Maruf; Amit L Jain; Maria J Merino; Peter L Choyke; Bradford J Wood; Peter A Pinto; Baris Turkbey
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2018-01-20       Impact factor: 7.450

9.  A multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging-based virtual reality surgical navigation tool for robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy.

Authors:  Sherif Mehralivand; Abhishek Kolagunda; Kai Hammerich; Vikram Sabarwal; Stephanie Harmon; Thomas Sanford; Samuel Gold; Graham Hale; Vladimir Valera Romero; Jonathan Bloom; Maria J Merino; Bradford J Wood; Chandra Kambhamettu; Peter L Choyke; Peter A Pinto; Barış Türkbey
Journal:  Turk J Urol       Date:  2019-09-01

10.  PI-RADS® Category as a Predictor of Progression to Unfavorable Risk Prostate Cancer in Men on Active Surveillance.

Authors:  Alex Z Wang; Luke P O’Conno; Nitin K Yerram; Lori Long; Johnathan Zeng; Sherif Mehralivand; Stephanie A Harmon; Amir H Lebastchi; Michael Ahdoot; Patrick T Gomella; Sandeep Gurram; Peter L Choyke; Maria J Merino; Joanna H Shih; Bradford J Wood; Baris Turkbey; Peter A Pinto
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2020-07-27       Impact factor: 7.450

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.