PURPOSE: Automated delineation of structures and organs is a key step in medical imaging. However, due to the large number and diversity of structures and the large variety of segmentation algorithms, a consensus is lacking as to which automated segmentation method works best for certain applications. Segmentation challenges are a good approach for unbiased evaluation and comparison of segmentation algorithms. METHODS: In this work, we describe and present the results of the Head and Neck Auto-Segmentation Challenge 2015, a satellite event at the Medical Image Computing and Computer Assisted Interventions (MICCAI) 2015 conference. Six teams participated in a challenge to segment nine structures in the head and neck region of CT images: brainstem, mandible, chiasm, bilateral optic nerves, bilateral parotid glands, and bilateral submandibular glands. RESULTS: This paper presents the quantitative results of this challenge using multiple established error metrics and a well-defined ranking system. The strengths and weaknesses of the different auto-segmentation approaches are analyzed and discussed. CONCLUSIONS: The Head and Neck Auto-Segmentation Challenge 2015 was a good opportunity to assess the current state-of-the-art in segmentation of organs at risk for radiotherapy treatment. Participating teams had the possibility to compare their approaches to other methods under unbiased and standardized circumstances. The results demonstrate a clear tendency toward more general purpose and fewer structure-specific segmentation algorithms.
PURPOSE: Automated delineation of structures and organs is a key step in medical imaging. However, due to the large number and diversity of structures and the large variety of segmentation algorithms, a consensus is lacking as to which automated segmentation method works best for certain applications. Segmentation challenges are a good approach for unbiased evaluation and comparison of segmentation algorithms. METHODS: In this work, we describe and present the results of the Head and Neck Auto-Segmentation Challenge 2015, a satellite event at the Medical Image Computing and Computer Assisted Interventions (MICCAI) 2015 conference. Six teams participated in a challenge to segment nine structures in the head and neck region of CT images: brainstem, mandible, chiasm, bilateral optic nerves, bilateral parotid glands, and bilateral submandibular glands. RESULTS: This paper presents the quantitative results of this challenge using multiple established error metrics and a well-defined ranking system. The strengths and weaknesses of the different auto-segmentation approaches are analyzed and discussed. CONCLUSIONS: The Head and Neck Auto-Segmentation Challenge 2015 was a good opportunity to assess the current state-of-the-art in segmentation of organs at risk for radiotherapy treatment. Participating teams had the possibility to compare their approaches to other methods under unbiased and standardized circumstances. The results demonstrate a clear tendency toward more general purpose and fewer structure-specific segmentation algorithms.
Authors: Kurt G Schilling; Alessandro Daducci; Klaus Maier-Hein; Cyril Poupon; Jean-Christophe Houde; Vishwesh Nath; Adam W Anderson; Bennett A Landman; Maxime Descoteaux Journal: Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2018-11-29 Impact factor: 2.546
Authors: Elias Tappeiner; Samuel Pröll; Markus Hönig; Patrick F Raudaschl; Paolo Zaffino; Maria F Spadea; Gregory C Sharp; Rainer Schubert; Karl Fritscher Journal: Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg Date: 2019-03-07 Impact factor: 2.924
Authors: Nava Aghdasi; Yangming Li; Angelique Berens; Richard A Harbison; Kris S Moe; Blake Hannaford Journal: J Med Imaging (Bellingham) Date: 2017-07-22
Authors: Brent van der Heyden; Mark Podesta; Daniëlle Bp Eekers; Ana Vaniqui; Isabel P Almeida; Lotte Ejr Schyns; Stefan J van Hoof; Frank Verhaegen Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2018-07-25 Impact factor: 3.039
Authors: Yubing Tong; Jayaram K Udupa; Xingyu Wu; Dewey Odhner; Gargi Pednekar; Charles B Simone; David McLaughlin; Chavanon Apinorasethkul; Geraldine Shammo; Paul James; Joseph Camaratta; Drew A Torigian Journal: Proc SPIE Int Soc Opt Eng Date: 2018-03-12
Authors: Domen Močnik; Bulat Ibragimov; Lei Xing; Primož Strojan; Boštjan Likar; Franjo Pernuš; Tomaž Vrtovec Journal: Phys Med Date: 2018-06-19 Impact factor: 2.685
Authors: Xingyu Wu; Jayaram K Udupa; Yubing Tong; Dewey Odhner; Gargi V Pednekar; Charles B Simone; David McLaughlin; Chavanon Apinorasethkul; Ontida Apinorasethkul; John Lukens; Dimitris Mihailidis; Geraldine Shammo; Paul James; Akhil Tiwari; Lisa Wojtowicz; Joseph Camaratta; Drew A Torigian Journal: Med Image Anal Date: 2019-01-29 Impact factor: 8.545
Authors: Jue Jiang; Yu-Chi Hu; Neelam Tyagi; Andreas Rimner; Nancy Lee; Joseph O Deasy; Sean Berry; Harini Veeraraghavan Journal: IEEE Trans Med Imaging Date: 2020-11-30 Impact factor: 10.048