Ehab A AlBadawy1, Ashirbani Saha1, Maciej A Mazurowski1,2,3. 1. Department of Radiology, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC, USA. 2. Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA. 3. Duke University Medical Physics Program, Durham, NC, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Convolutional neural networks (CNNs) are commonly used for segmentation of brain tumors. In this work, we assess the effect of cross-institutional training on the performance of CNNs. METHODS: We selected 44 glioblastoma (GBM) patients from two institutions in The Cancer Imaging Archive dataset. The images were manually annotated by outlining each tumor component to form ground truth. To automatically segment the tumors in each patient, we trained three CNNs: (a) one using data for patients from the same institution as the test data, (b) one using data for the patients from the other institution and (c) one using data for the patients from both of the institutions. The performance of the trained models was evaluated using Dice similarity coefficients as well as Average Hausdorff Distance between the ground truth and automatic segmentations. The 10-fold cross-validation scheme was used to compare the performance of different approaches. RESULTS: Performance of the model significantly decreased (P < 0.0001) when it was trained on data from a different institution (dice coefficients: 0.68 ± 0.19 and 0.59 ± 0.19) as compared to training with data from the same institution (dice coefficients: 0.72 ± 0.17 and 0.76 ± 0.12). This trend persisted for segmentation of the entire tumor as well as its individual components. CONCLUSIONS: There is a very strong effect of selecting data for training on performance of CNNs in a multi-institutional setting. Determination of the reasons behind this effect requires additional comprehensive investigation.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Convolutional neural networks (CNNs) are commonly used for segmentation of brain tumors. In this work, we assess the effect of cross-institutional training on the performance of CNNs. METHODS: We selected 44 glioblastoma (GBM) patients from two institutions in The Cancer Imaging Archive dataset. The images were manually annotated by outlining each tumor component to form ground truth. To automatically segment the tumors in each patient, we trained three CNNs: (a) one using data for patients from the same institution as the test data, (b) one using data for the patients from the other institution and (c) one using data for the patients from both of the institutions. The performance of the trained models was evaluated using Dice similarity coefficients as well as Average Hausdorff Distance between the ground truth and automatic segmentations. The 10-fold cross-validation scheme was used to compare the performance of different approaches. RESULTS: Performance of the model significantly decreased (P < 0.0001) when it was trained on data from a different institution (dice coefficients: 0.68 ± 0.19 and 0.59 ± 0.19) as compared to training with data from the same institution (dice coefficients: 0.72 ± 0.17 and 0.76 ± 0.12). This trend persisted for segmentation of the entire tumor as well as its individual components. CONCLUSIONS: There is a very strong effect of selecting data for training on performance of CNNs in a multi-institutional setting. Determination of the reasons behind this effect requires additional comprehensive investigation.
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
Authors: Niranjan Balachandar; Ken Chang; Jayashree Kalpathy-Cramer; Daniel L Rubin Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2020-05-01 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Jeffrey D Rudie; Andreas M Rauschecker; R Nick Bryan; Christos Davatzikos; Suyash Mohan Journal: Radiology Date: 2019-01-22 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Nathaniel C Swinburne; Vivek Yadav; Julie Kim; Ye R Choi; David C Gutman; Jonathan T Yang; Nelson Moss; Jacqueline Stone; Jamie Tisnado; Vaios Hatzoglou; Sofia S Haque; Sasan Karimi; John Lyo; Krishna Juluru; Karl Pichotta; Jianjiong Gao; Sohrab P Shah; Andrei I Holodny; Robert J Young Journal: Radiology Date: 2022-01-18 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Michele Avanzo; Lise Wei; Joseph Stancanello; Martin Vallières; Arvind Rao; Olivier Morin; Sarah A Mattonen; Issam El Naqa Journal: Med Phys Date: 2020-06 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Jimmy S Chen; Aaron S Coyner; Susan Ostmo; Kemal Sonmez; Sanyam Bajimaya; Eli Pradhan; Nita Valikodath; Emily D Cole; Tala Al-Khaled; R V Paul Chan; Praveer Singh; Jayashree Kalpathy-Cramer; Michael F Chiang; J Peter Campbell Journal: Ophthalmol Retina Date: 2021-02-06