Karl D Spuhler1, Jie Ding1, Chunling Liu2,3, Junqi Sun2,4, Mario Serrano-Sosa1, Meghan Moriarty2,5, Chuan Huang1,2,6. 1. Biomedical Engineering, Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, New York. 2. Radiology, Renaissance School of Medicine, Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, New York. 3. Radiology, Guangdong General Hospital/Guangdong Academy of Medical Sciences, Guangzhou, China. 4. Radiology, Yuebei People's Hospital, Shaoguan, Guangdong, China. 5. Radiology, Mather Hospital, Port Jefferson, New York. 6. Psychiatry, Renaissance School of Medicine, Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, New York.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Radiomics allows for powerful data-mining and feature extraction techniques to guide clinical decision making. Image segmentation is a necessary step in such pipelines and different techniques can significantly affect results. We demonstrate that a convolutional neural network (CNN) segmentation method performs comparably to expert manual segmentations in an established radiomics pipeline. METHODS: Using the manual regions of interest (ROIs) of an expert radiologist (R1), a CNN was trained to segment breast lesions from dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI (DCE-MRI). Following network training, we segmented lesions for the testing set of a previously established radiomics pipeline for predicting lymph node metastases using DCE-MRI of breast cancer. Prediction accuracy of CNN segmentations relative to manual segmentations by R1 from the original study, a resident (R2), and another expert radiologist (R3) were determined. We then retrained the CNN and radiomics model using R3's manual segmentations to determine the effects of different expert observers on end-to-end prediction. RESULTS: Using R1's ROIs, the CNN achieved a mean Dice coefficient of 0.71 ± 0.16 in the testing set. When input to our previously published radiomics pipeline, these CNN segmentations achieved comparable prediction performance to R1's manual ROIs, and superior performance to those of the other radiologists. Similar results were seen when training the CNN and radiomics model using R3's ROIs. CONCLUSION: A CNN architecture is able to provide DCE-MRI breast lesion segmentations which are suitable for input to our radiomics model. Moreover, the previously established radiomics model and CNN can be accurately trained end-to-end using ground truth data provided by distinct experts.
PURPOSE: Radiomics allows for powerful data-mining and feature extraction techniques to guide clinical decision making. Image segmentation is a necessary step in such pipelines and different techniques can significantly affect results. We demonstrate that a convolutional neural network (CNN) segmentation method performs comparably to expert manual segmentations in an established radiomics pipeline. METHODS: Using the manual regions of interest (ROIs) of an expert radiologist (R1), a CNN was trained to segment breast lesions from dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI (DCE-MRI). Following network training, we segmented lesions for the testing set of a previously established radiomics pipeline for predicting lymph node metastases using DCE-MRI of breast cancer. Prediction accuracy of CNN segmentations relative to manual segmentations by R1 from the original study, a resident (R2), and another expert radiologist (R3) were determined. We then retrained the CNN and radiomics model using R3's manual segmentations to determine the effects of different expert observers on end-to-end prediction. RESULTS: Using R1's ROIs, the CNN achieved a mean Dice coefficient of 0.71 ± 0.16 in the testing set. When input to our previously published radiomics pipeline, these CNN segmentations achieved comparable prediction performance to R1's manual ROIs, and superior performance to those of the other radiologists. Similar results were seen when training the CNN and radiomics model using R3's ROIs. CONCLUSION: A CNN architecture is able to provide DCE-MRI breast lesion segmentations which are suitable for input to our radiomics model. Moreover, the previously established radiomics model and CNN can be accurately trained end-to-end using ground truth data provided by distinct experts.
Authors: Philippe Lambin; Ralph T H Leijenaar; Timo M Deist; Jurgen Peerlings; Evelyn E C de Jong; Janita van Timmeren; Sebastian Sanduleanu; Ruben T H M Larue; Aniek J G Even; Arthur Jochems; Yvonka van Wijk; Henry Woodruff; Johan van Soest; Tim Lustberg; Erik Roelofs; Wouter van Elmpt; Andre Dekker; Felix M Mottaghy; Joachim E Wildberger; Sean Walsh Journal: Nat Rev Clin Oncol Date: 2017-10-04 Impact factor: 66.675
Authors: Kenny H Cha; Lubomir Hadjiiski; Heang-Ping Chan; Alon Z Weizer; Ajjai Alva; Richard H Cohan; Elaine M Caoili; Chintana Paramagul; Ravi K Samala Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2017-08-18 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: Ruben T H M Larue; Gilles Defraene; Dirk De Ruysscher; Philippe Lambin; Wouter van Elmpt Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2016-12-12 Impact factor: 3.039
Authors: Mario Serrano-Sosa; Jared X Van Snellenberg; Jiayan Meng; Jacob R Luceno; Karl Spuhler; Jodi J Weinstein; Anissa Abi-Dargham; Mark Slifstein; Chuan Huang Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2021-05-10 Impact factor: 5.119
Authors: Lukas Hirsch; Yu Huang; Shaojun Luo; Carolina Rossi Saccarelli; Roberto Lo Gullo; Isaac Daimiel Naranjo; Almir G V Bitencourt; Natsuko Onishi; Eun Sook Ko; Doris Leithner; Daly Avendano; Sarah Eskreis-Winkler; Mary Hughes; Danny F Martinez; Katja Pinker; Krishna Juluru; Amin E El-Rowmeim; Pierre Elnajjar; Elizabeth A Morris; Hernan A Makse; Lucas C Parra; Elizabeth J Sutton Journal: Radiol Artif Intell Date: 2021-12-15
Authors: Renee Cattell; Jia Ying; Lan Lei; Jie Ding; Shenglan Chen; Mario Serrano Sosa; Chuan Huang Journal: Vis Comput Ind Biomed Art Date: 2022-03-07
Authors: John A Cole; Rita Nanda; Frederick M Howard; Gong He; Joseph R Peterson; J R Pfeiffer; Tyler Earnest; Alexander T Pearson; Hiroyuki Abe Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2022-09-05 Impact factor: 4.624