Literature DB >> 24418598

Evaluation of prostate segmentation algorithms for MRI: the PROMISE12 challenge.

Geert Litjens1, Robert Toth2, Wendy van de Ven3, Caroline Hoeks3, Sjoerd Kerkstra3, Bram van Ginneken3, Graham Vincent4, Gwenael Guillard4, Neil Birbeck5, Jindang Zhang5, Robin Strand6, Filip Malmberg6, Yangming Ou7, Christos Davatzikos7, Matthias Kirschner8, Florian Jung8, Jing Yuan9, Wu Qiu9, Qinquan Gao10, Philip Eddie Edwards10, Bianca Maan11, Ferdinand van der Heijden11, Soumya Ghose12, Jhimli Mitra12, Jason Dowling13, Dean Barratt14, Henkjan Huisman3, Anant Madabhushi2.   

Abstract

Prostate MRI image segmentation has been an area of intense research due to the increased use of MRI as a modality for the clinical workup of prostate cancer. Segmentation is useful for various tasks, e.g. to accurately localize prostate boundaries for radiotherapy or to initialize multi-modal registration algorithms. In the past, it has been difficult for research groups to evaluate prostate segmentation algorithms on multi-center, multi-vendor and multi-protocol data. Especially because we are dealing with MR images, image appearance, resolution and the presence of artifacts are affected by differences in scanners and/or protocols, which in turn can have a large influence on algorithm accuracy. The Prostate MR Image Segmentation (PROMISE12) challenge was setup to allow a fair and meaningful comparison of segmentation methods on the basis of performance and robustness. In this work we will discuss the initial results of the online PROMISE12 challenge, and the results obtained in the live challenge workshop hosted by the MICCAI2012 conference. In the challenge, 100 prostate MR cases from 4 different centers were included, with differences in scanner manufacturer, field strength and protocol. A total of 11 teams from academic research groups and industry participated. Algorithms showed a wide variety in methods and implementation, including active appearance models, atlas registration and level sets. Evaluation was performed using boundary and volume based metrics which were combined into a single score relating the metrics to human expert performance. The winners of the challenge where the algorithms by teams Imorphics and ScrAutoProstate, with scores of 85.72 and 84.29 overall. Both algorithms where significantly better than all other algorithms in the challenge (p<0.05) and had an efficient implementation with a run time of 8min and 3s per case respectively. Overall, active appearance model based approaches seemed to outperform other approaches like multi-atlas registration, both on accuracy and computation time. Although average algorithm performance was good to excellent and the Imorphics algorithm outperformed the second observer on average, we showed that algorithm combination might lead to further improvement, indicating that optimal performance for prostate segmentation is not yet obtained. All results are available online at http://promise12.grand-challenge.org/.
Copyright © 2013 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Challenge; MRI; Prostate; Segmentation

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 24418598      PMCID: PMC4137968          DOI: 10.1016/j.media.2013.12.002

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Med Image Anal        ISSN: 1361-8415            Impact factor:   8.545


  38 in total

1.  Patch-based segmentation using expert priors: application to hippocampus and ventricle segmentation.

Authors:  Pierrick Coupé; José V Manjón; Vladimir Fonov; Jens Pruessner; Montserrat Robles; D Louis Collins
Journal:  Neuroimage       Date:  2010-09-17       Impact factor: 6.556

2.  Label fusion in atlas-based segmentation using a selective and iterative method for performance level estimation (SIMPLE).

Authors:  Thomas Robin Langerak; Uulke A van der Heide; Alexis N T J Kotte; Max A Viergever; Marco van Vulpen; Josien P W Pluim
Journal:  IEEE Trans Med Imaging       Date:  2010-07-26       Impact factor: 10.048

3.  Combining a deformable model and a probabilistic framework for an automatic 3D segmentation of prostate on MRI.

Authors:  Nasr Makni; P Puech; R Lopes; A S Dewalle; O Colot; N Betrouni
Journal:  Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg       Date:  2008-12-03       Impact factor: 2.924

4.  Automatic segmentation of the prostate in 3D MR images by atlas matching using localized mutual information.

Authors:  Stefan Klein; Uulke A van der Heide; Irene M Lips; Marco van Vulpen; Marius Staring; Josien P W Pluim
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2008-04       Impact factor: 4.071

5.  MRI tissue classification and bias field estimation based on coherent local intensity clustering: a unified energy minimization framework.

Authors:  Chunming Li; Chenyang Xu; Adam W Anderson; John C Gore
Journal:  Inf Process Med Imaging       Date:  2009

6.  Prostate cancer detection with 3 T MRI: comparison of diffusion-weighted imaging and dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI in combination with T2-weighted imaging.

Authors:  Kazuhiro Kitajima; Yasushi Kaji; Yoshitatsu Fukabori; Ken-ichiro Yoshida; Narufumi Suganuma; Kazuro Sugimura
Journal:  J Magn Reson Imaging       Date:  2010-03       Impact factor: 4.813

7.  Online resource for validation of brain segmentation methods.

Authors:  David W Shattuck; Gautam Prasad; Mubeena Mirza; Katherine L Narr; Arthur W Toga
Journal:  Neuroimage       Date:  2008-11-25       Impact factor: 6.556

8.  Standardized evaluation methodology and reference database for evaluating coronary artery centerline extraction algorithms.

Authors:  Michiel Schaap; Coert T Metz; Theo van Walsum; Alina G van der Giessen; Annick C Weustink; Nico R Mollet; Christian Bauer; Hrvoje Bogunović; Carlos Castro; Xiang Deng; Engin Dikici; Thomas O'Donnell; Michel Frenay; Ola Friman; Marcela Hernández Hoyos; Pieter H Kitslaar; Karl Krissian; Caroline Kühnel; Miguel A Luengo-Oroz; Maciej Orkisz; Orjan Smedby; Martin Styner; Andrzej Szymczak; Hüseyin Tek; Chunliang Wang; Simon K Warfield; Sebastian Zambal; Yong Zhang; Gabriel P Krestin; Wiro J Niessen
Journal:  Med Image Anal       Date:  2009-06-30       Impact factor: 8.545

9.  Matching breast masses depicted on different views a comparison of three methods.

Authors:  Bin Zheng; Jun Tan; Marie A Ganott; Denise M Chough; David Gur
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2009-07-25       Impact factor: 3.173

10.  Retinopathy online challenge: automatic detection of microaneurysms in digital color fundus photographs.

Authors:  Meindert Niemeijer; Bram van Ginneken; Michael J Cree; Atsushi Mizutani; Gwénolé Quellec; Clara I Sanchez; Bob Zhang; Roberto Hornero; Mathieu Lamard; Chisako Muramatsu; Xiangqian Wu; Guy Cazuguel; Jane You; Agustín Mayo; Qin Li; Yuji Hatanaka; Béatrice Cochener; Christian Roux; Fakhri Karray; María Garcia; Hiroshi Fujita; Michael D Abramoff
Journal:  IEEE Trans Med Imaging       Date:  2009-10-09       Impact factor: 10.048

View more
  74 in total

1.  A semiautomatic approach for prostate segmentation in MR images using local texture classification and statistical shape modeling.

Authors:  Maysam Shahedi; Martin Halicek; Qinmei Li; Lizhi Liu; Zhenfeng Zhang; Sadhna Verma; David M Schuster; Baowei Fei
Journal:  Proc SPIE Int Soc Opt Eng       Date:  2019-03-08

2.  Generalizing Deep Learning for Medical Image Segmentation to Unseen Domains via Deep Stacked Transformation.

Authors:  Ling Zhang; Xiaosong Wang; Dong Yang; Thomas Sanford; Stephanie Harmon; Baris Turkbey; Bradford J Wood; Holger Roth; Andriy Myronenko; Daguang Xu; Ziyue Xu
Journal:  IEEE Trans Med Imaging       Date:  2020-02-12       Impact factor: 10.048

3.  Three-dimensional nonrigid landmark-based magnetic resonance to transrectal ultrasound registration for image-guided prostate biopsy.

Authors:  Yue Sun; Wu Qiu; Jing Yuan; Cesare Romagnoli; Aaron Fenster
Journal:  J Med Imaging (Bellingham)       Date:  2015-06-24

4.  PROSTATEx Challenges for computerized classification of prostate lesions from multiparametric magnetic resonance images.

Authors:  Samuel G Armato; Henkjan Huisman; Karen Drukker; Lubomir Hadjiiski; Justin S Kirby; Nicholas Petrick; George Redmond; Maryellen L Giger; Kenny Cha; Artem Mamonov; Jayashree Kalpathy-Cramer; Keyvan Farahani
Journal:  J Med Imaging (Bellingham)       Date:  2018-11-10

5.  Image Annotation by Eye Tracking: Accuracy and Precision of Centerlines of Obstructed Small-Bowel Segments Placed Using Eye Trackers.

Authors:  Alfredo Lucas; Kang Wang; Cynthia Santillan; Albert Hsiao; Claude B Sirlin; Paul M Murphy
Journal:  J Digit Imaging       Date:  2019-10       Impact factor: 4.056

6.  Segmentation of the Prostate Transition Zone and Peripheral Zone on MR Images with Deep Learning.

Authors:  Michelle Bardis; Roozbeh Houshyar; Chanon Chantaduly; Karen Tran-Harding; Alexander Ushinsky; Chantal Chahine; Mark Rupasinghe; Daniel Chow; Peter Chang
Journal:  Radiol Imaging Cancer       Date:  2021-05

7.  Accuracy Validation of an Automated Method for Prostate Segmentation in Magnetic Resonance Imaging.

Authors:  Maysam Shahedi; Derek W Cool; Glenn S Bauman; Matthew Bastian-Jordan; Aaron Fenster; Aaron D Ward
Journal:  J Digit Imaging       Date:  2017-12       Impact factor: 4.056

8.  [Segmentation of the prostate on magnetic resonance images using an ellipsoidal shape prior constraint algorithm].

Authors:  Xue-Li Li; Shu-Mao Pang; Wei Yang; Qian-Jin Feng
Journal:  Nan Fang Yi Ke Da Xue Xue Bao       Date:  2017-03-20

9.  Deeply supervised 3D fully convolutional networks with group dilated convolution for automatic MRI prostate segmentation.

Authors:  Bo Wang; Yang Lei; Sibo Tian; Tonghe Wang; Yingzi Liu; Pretesh Patel; Ashesh B Jani; Hui Mao; Walter J Curran; Tian Liu; Xiaofeng Yang
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2019-02-19       Impact factor: 4.071

10.  Visual saliency-based active learning for prostate magnetic resonance imaging segmentation.

Authors:  Dwarikanath Mahapatra; Joachim M Buhmann
Journal:  J Med Imaging (Bellingham)       Date:  2016-02-19
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.