Sara Moccia1, Elena De Momi2, Sara El Hadji3, Leonardo S Mattos4. 1. Department of Electronics, Information and Bioengineering, Politecnico di Milano, Milan, Italy; Department of Advanced Robotics, Istituto Italiano di Tecnologia, Genoa, Italy. Electronic address: sara.moccia@polimi.it. 2. Department of Electronics, Information and Bioengineering, Politecnico di Milano, Milan, Italy. 3. Department of Electronics, Information and Bioengineering, Politecnico di Milano, Milan, Italy. Electronic address: sara.elhadji@polimi.it. 4. Department of Advanced Robotics, Istituto Italiano di Tecnologia, Genoa, Italy.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Blood vessel segmentation is a topic of high interest in medical image analysis since the analysis of vessels is crucial for diagnosis, treatment planning and execution, and evaluation of clinical outcomes in different fields, including laryngology, neurosurgery and ophthalmology. Automatic or semi-automatic vessel segmentation can support clinicians in performing these tasks. Different medical imaging techniques are currently used in clinical practice and an appropriate choice of the segmentation algorithm is mandatory to deal with the adopted imaging technique characteristics (e.g. resolution, noise and vessel contrast). OBJECTIVE: This paper aims at reviewing the most recent and innovative blood vessel segmentation algorithms. Among the algorithms and approaches considered, we deeply investigated the most novel blood vessel segmentation including machine learning, deformable model, and tracking-based approaches. METHODS: This paper analyzes more than 100 articles focused on blood vessel segmentation methods. For each analyzed approach, summary tables are presented reporting imaging technique used, anatomical region and performance measures employed. Benefits and disadvantages of each method are highlighted. DISCUSSION: Despite the constant progress and efforts addressed in the field, several issues still need to be overcome. A relevant limitation consists in the segmentation of pathological vessels. Unfortunately, not consistent research effort has been addressed to this issue yet. Research is needed since some of the main assumptions made for healthy vessels (such as linearity and circular cross-section) do not hold in pathological tissues, which on the other hand require new vessel model formulations. Moreover, image intensity drops, noise and low contrast still represent an important obstacle for the achievement of a high-quality enhancement. This is particularly true for optical imaging, where the image quality is usually lower in terms of noise and contrast with respect to magnetic resonance and computer tomography angiography. CONCLUSION: No single segmentation approach is suitable for all the different anatomical region or imaging modalities, thus the primary goal of this review was to provide an up to date source of information about the state of the art of the vessel segmentation algorithms so that the most suitable methods can be chosen according to the specific task.
BACKGROUND: Blood vessel segmentation is a topic of high interest in medical image analysis since the analysis of vessels is crucial for diagnosis, treatment planning and execution, and evaluation of clinical outcomes in different fields, including laryngology, neurosurgery and ophthalmology. Automatic or semi-automatic vessel segmentation can support clinicians in performing these tasks. Different medical imaging techniques are currently used in clinical practice and an appropriate choice of the segmentation algorithm is mandatory to deal with the adopted imaging technique characteristics (e.g. resolution, noise and vessel contrast). OBJECTIVE: This paper aims at reviewing the most recent and innovative blood vessel segmentation algorithms. Among the algorithms and approaches considered, we deeply investigated the most novel blood vessel segmentation including machine learning, deformable model, and tracking-based approaches. METHODS: This paper analyzes more than 100 articles focused on blood vessel segmentation methods. For each analyzed approach, summary tables are presented reporting imaging technique used, anatomical region and performance measures employed. Benefits and disadvantages of each method are highlighted. DISCUSSION: Despite the constant progress and efforts addressed in the field, several issues still need to be overcome. A relevant limitation consists in the segmentation of pathological vessels. Unfortunately, not consistent research effort has been addressed to this issue yet. Research is needed since some of the main assumptions made for healthy vessels (such as linearity and circular cross-section) do not hold in pathological tissues, which on the other hand require new vessel model formulations. Moreover, image intensity drops, noise and low contrast still represent an important obstacle for the achievement of a high-quality enhancement. This is particularly true for optical imaging, where the image quality is usually lower in terms of noise and contrast with respect to magnetic resonance and computer tomography angiography. CONCLUSION: No single segmentation approach is suitable for all the different anatomical region or imaging modalities, thus the primary goal of this review was to provide an up to date source of information about the state of the art of the vessel segmentation algorithms so that the most suitable methods can be chosen according to the specific task.
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: Paolo Zaffino; Guillaume Pernelle; Andre Mastmeyer; Alireza Mehrtash; Hongtao Zhang; Ron Kikinis; Tina Kapur; Maria Francesca Spadea Journal: Phys Med Biol Date: 2019-08-14 Impact factor: 3.609
Authors: Sara Moccia; Simone Foti; Arpita Routray; Francesca Prudente; Alessandro Perin; Raymond F Sekula; Leonardo S Mattos; Jeffrey R Balzer; Wendy Fellows-Mayle; Elena De Momi; Cameron N Riviere Journal: Ann Biomed Eng Date: 2018-07-16 Impact factor: 3.934