Qi Zeng1, Golnoosh Samei2, Davood Karimi2, Claudia Kesch3, Sara S Mahdavi4, Purang Abolmaesumi2, Septimiu E Salcudean2. 1. Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada. qizeng@ece.ubc.ca. 2. Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada. 3. Vancouver Prostate Centre, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada. 4. British Columbia Cancer Agency, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
Abstract
PURPOSE: In the current standard of care, real-time transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) is commonly used for prostate brachytherapy guidance. As TRUS provides limited soft tissue contrast, segmenting the prostate gland in TRUS images is often challenging and subject to inter-observer and intra-observer variability, especially at the base and apex where the gland boundary is hard to define. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has higher soft tissue contrast allowing the prostate to be contoured easily. In this paper, we aim to show that prostate segmentation in TRUS images informed by MRI priors can improve on prostate segmentation that relies only on TRUS images. METHODS: First, we compare the TRUS-based prostate segmentation used in the treatment of 598 patients with a high-quality MRI prostate atlas and observe inconsistencies at the apex and base. Second, motivated by this finding, we propose an alternative TRUS segmentation technique that is fully automatic and uses MRI priors. The algorithm uses a convolutional neural network to segment the prostate in TRUS images at mid-gland, where the gland boundary can be clearly seen. It then reconstructs the gland boundary at the apex and base with the aid of a statistical shape model built from an MRI atlas of 78 patients. RESULTS: Compared to the clinical TRUS segmentation, our method achieves similar mid-gland segmentation results in the 598-patient database. For the seven patients who had both TRUS and MRI, our method achieved more accurate segmentation of the base and apex with the MRI segmentation used as ground truth. CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that utilizing MRI priors in TRUS prostate segmentation could potentially improve the performance at base and apex.
PURPOSE: In the current standard of care, real-time transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) is commonly used for prostate brachytherapy guidance. As TRUS provides limited soft tissue contrast, segmenting the prostate gland in TRUS images is often challenging and subject to inter-observer and intra-observer variability, especially at the base and apex where the gland boundary is hard to define. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has higher soft tissue contrast allowing the prostate to be contoured easily. In this paper, we aim to show that prostate segmentation in TRUS images informed by MRI priors can improve on prostate segmentation that relies only on TRUS images. METHODS: First, we compare the TRUS-based prostate segmentation used in the treatment of 598 patients with a high-quality MRI prostate atlas and observe inconsistencies at the apex and base. Second, motivated by this finding, we propose an alternative TRUS segmentation technique that is fully automatic and uses MRI priors. The algorithm uses a convolutional neural network to segment the prostate in TRUS images at mid-gland, where the gland boundary can be clearly seen. It then reconstructs the gland boundary at the apex and base with the aid of a statistical shape model built from an MRI atlas of 78 patients. RESULTS: Compared to the clinical TRUS segmentation, our method achieves similar mid-gland segmentation results in the 598-patient database. For the seven patients who had both TRUS and MRI, our method achieved more accurate segmentation of the base and apex with the MRI segmentation used as ground truth. CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that utilizing MRI priors in TRUS prostate segmentation could potentially improve the performance at base and apex.
Entities:
Keywords:
Convolutional neural network; Magnetic resonance imaging prior; Prostate segmentation; Statistical shape model
Authors: A Rahmouni; A Yang; C M Tempany; T Frenkel; J Epstein; P Walsh; P K Leichner; C Ricci; E Zerhouni Journal: J Comput Assist Tomogr Date: 1992 Nov-Dec Impact factor: 1.826
Authors: Geert Litjens; Robert Toth; Wendy van de Ven; Caroline Hoeks; Sjoerd Kerkstra; Bram van Ginneken; Graham Vincent; Gwenael Guillard; Neil Birbeck; Jindang Zhang; Robin Strand; Filip Malmberg; Yangming Ou; Christos Davatzikos; Matthias Kirschner; Florian Jung; Jing Yuan; Wu Qiu; Qinquan Gao; Philip Eddie Edwards; Bianca Maan; Ferdinand van der Heijden; Soumya Ghose; Jhimli Mitra; Jason Dowling; Dean Barratt; Henkjan Huisman; Anant Madabhushi Journal: Med Image Anal Date: 2013-12-25 Impact factor: 8.545
Authors: S Sara Mahdavi; Nick Chng; Ingrid Spadinger; William J Morris; Septimiu E Salcudean Journal: Med Image Anal Date: 2010-10-26 Impact factor: 8.545
Authors: W J Morris; M Keyes; D Palma; I Spadinger; M R McKenzie; A Agranovich; T Pickles; M Liu; W Kwan; J Wu; E Berthelet; H Pai Journal: Urology Date: 2009-01-24 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: Mohammad Havaei; Axel Davy; David Warde-Farley; Antoine Biard; Aaron Courville; Yoshua Bengio; Chris Pal; Pierre-Marc Jodoin; Hugo Larochelle Journal: Med Image Anal Date: 2016-05-19 Impact factor: 8.545
Authors: Indrani Bhattacharya; Yash S Khandwala; Sulaiman Vesal; Wei Shao; Qianye Yang; Simon J C Soerensen; Richard E Fan; Pejman Ghanouni; Christian A Kunder; James D Brooks; Yipeng Hu; Mirabela Rusu; Geoffrey A Sonn Journal: Ther Adv Urol Date: 2022-10-10