PURPOSE: Manual delineation of head and neck (H&N) organ-at-risk (OAR) structures for radiation therapy planning is time consuming and highly variable. Therefore, we developed a dynamic multiatlas selection-based approach for fast and reproducible segmentation. METHODS: Our approach dynamically selects and weights the appropriate number of atlases for weighted label fusion and generates segmentations and consensus maps indicating voxel-wise agreement between different atlases. Atlases were selected for a target as those exceeding an alignment weight called dynamic atlas attention index. Alignment weights were computed at the image level and called global weighted voting (GWV) or at the structure level and called structure weighted voting (SWV) by using a normalized metric computed as the sum of squared distances of computed tomography (CT)-radiodensity and modality-independent neighborhood descriptors (extracting edge information). Performance comparisons were performed using 77 H&N CT images from an internal Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center dataset (N = 45) and an external dataset (N = 32) using Dice similarity coefficient (DSC), Hausdorff distance (HD), 95th percentile of HD, median of maximum surface distance, and volume ratio error against expert delineation. Pairwise DSC accuracy comparisons of proposed (GWV, SWV) vs single best atlas (BA) or majority voting (MV) methods were performed using Wilcoxon rank-sum tests. RESULTS: Both SWV and GWV methods produced significantly better segmentation accuracy than BA (P < 0.001) and MV (P < 0.001) for all OARs within both datasets. SWV generated the most accurate segmentations with DSC of: 0.88 for oral cavity, 0.85 for mandible, 0.84 for cord, 0.76 for brainstem and parotids, 0.71 for larynx, and 0.60 for submandibular glands. SWV's accuracy exceeded GWV's for submandibular glands (DSC = 0.60 vs 0.52, P = 0.019). CONCLUSIONS: The contributed SWV and GWV methods generated more accurate automated segmentations than the other two multiatlas-based segmentation techniques. The consensus maps could be combined with segmentations to visualize voxel-wise consensus between atlases within OARs during manual review.
PURPOSE: Manual delineation of head and neck (H&N) organ-at-risk (OAR) structures for radiation therapy planning is time consuming and highly variable. Therefore, we developed a dynamic multiatlas selection-based approach for fast and reproducible segmentation. METHODS: Our approach dynamically selects and weights the appropriate number of atlases for weighted label fusion and generates segmentations and consensus maps indicating voxel-wise agreement between different atlases. Atlases were selected for a target as those exceeding an alignment weight called dynamic atlas attention index. Alignment weights were computed at the image level and called global weighted voting (GWV) or at the structure level and called structure weighted voting (SWV) by using a normalized metric computed as the sum of squared distances of computed tomography (CT)-radiodensity and modality-independent neighborhood descriptors (extracting edge information). Performance comparisons were performed using 77 H&N CT images from an internal Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center dataset (N = 45) and an external dataset (N = 32) using Dice similarity coefficient (DSC), Hausdorff distance (HD), 95th percentile of HD, median of maximum surface distance, and volume ratio error against expert delineation. Pairwise DSC accuracy comparisons of proposed (GWV, SWV) vs single best atlas (BA) or majority voting (MV) methods were performed using Wilcoxon rank-sum tests. RESULTS: Both SWV and GWV methods produced significantly better segmentation accuracy than BA (P < 0.001) and MV (P < 0.001) for all OARs within both datasets. SWV generated the most accurate segmentations with DSC of: 0.88 for oral cavity, 0.85 for mandible, 0.84 for cord, 0.76 for brainstem and parotids, 0.71 for larynx, and 0.60 for submandibular glands. SWV's accuracy exceeded GWV's for submandibular glands (DSC = 0.60 vs 0.52, P = 0.019). CONCLUSIONS: The contributed SWV and GWV methods generated more accurate automated segmentations than the other two multiatlas-based segmentation techniques. The consensus maps could be combined with segmentations to visualize voxel-wise consensus between atlases within OARs during manual review.
Authors: Mattias P Heinrich; Mark Jenkinson; Manav Bhushan; Tahreema Matin; Fergus V Gleeson; Sir Michael Brady; Julia A Schnabel Journal: Med Image Anal Date: 2012-05-31 Impact factor: 8.545
Authors: Patrik F Raudaschl; Paolo Zaffino; Gregory C Sharp; Maria Francesca Spadea; Antong Chen; Benoit M Dawant; Thomas Albrecht; Tobias Gass; Christoph Langguth; Marcel Lüthi; Florian Jung; Oliver Knapp; Stefan Wesarg; Richard Mannion-Haworth; Mike Bowes; Annaliese Ashman; Gwenael Guillard; Alan Brett; Graham Vincent; Mauricio Orbes-Arteaga; David Cárdenas-Peña; German Castellanos-Dominguez; Nava Aghdasi; Yangming Li; Angelique Berens; Kris Moe; Blake Hannaford; Rainer Schubert; Karl D Fritscher Journal: Med Phys Date: 2017-04-21 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Mert R Sabuncu; B T Thomas Yeo; Koen Van Leemput; Bruce Fischl; Polina Golland Journal: IEEE Trans Med Imaging Date: 2010-06-17 Impact factor: 10.048
Authors: Xiaofeng Yang; Ning Wu; Guanghui Cheng; Zhengyang Zhou; David S Yu; Jonathan J Beitler; Walter J Curran; Tian Liu Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2014-10-13 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Carlos E Cardenas; Abdallah S R Mohamed; Jinzhong Yang; Mark Gooding; Harini Veeraraghavan; Jayashree Kalpathy-Cramer; Sweet Ping Ng; Yao Ding; Jihong Wang; Stephen Y Lai; Clifton D Fuller; Greg Sharp Journal: Med Phys Date: 2020-06 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Carlos E Cardenas; Beth M Beadle; Adam S Garden; Heath D Skinner; Jinzhong Yang; Dong Joo Rhee; Rachel E McCarroll; Tucker J Netherton; Skylar S Gay; Lifei Zhang; Laurence E Court Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2020-10-14 Impact factor: 8.013