Kai Roman Laukamp1,2,3, Lenhard Pennig4, Frank Thiele4,5, Robert Reimer4, Lukas Görtz6, Georgy Shakirin4,5, David Zopfs4, Marco Timmer6, Michael Perkuhn4,5, Jan Borggrefe4. 1. Institute for Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, University of Cologne, Kerpener Straße 62, 50937, Cologne, Germany. kai.laukamp@uk-koeln.de. 2. Department of Radiology, University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center, Cleveland, OH, USA. kai.laukamp@uk-koeln.de. 3. Department of Radiology, Case Western Reserve University Cleveland, Cleveland, OH, USA. kai.laukamp@uk-koeln.de. 4. Institute for Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, University of Cologne, Kerpener Straße 62, 50937, Cologne, Germany. 5. Philips GmbH Innovative Technologies, Aachen, Germany. 6. Center for Neurosurgery, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Volumetric assessment of meningiomas represents a valuable tool for treatment planning and evaluation of tumor growth as it enables a more precise assessment of tumor size than conventional diameter methods. This study established a dedicated meningioma deep learning model based on routine magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) data and evaluated its performance for automated tumor segmentation. METHODS: The MRI datasets included T1-weighted/T2-weighted, T1-weighted contrast-enhanced (T1CE) and FLAIR of 126 patients with intracranial meningiomas (grade I: 97, grade II: 29). For automated segmentation, an established deep learning model architecture (3D deep convolutional neural network, DeepMedic, BioMedIA) operating on all four MR sequences was used. Segmentation included the following two components: (i) contrast-enhancing tumor volume in T1CE and (ii) total lesion volume (union of lesion volume in T1CE and FLAIR, including solid tumor parts and surrounding edema). Preprocessing of imaging data included registration, skull stripping, resampling, and normalization. After training of the deep learning model using manual segmentations by 2 independent readers from 70 patients (training group), the algorithm was evaluated on 56 patients (validation group) by comparing automated to ground truth manual segmentations, which were performed by 2 experienced readers in consensus. RESULTS: Of the 56 meningiomas in the validation group 55 were detected by the deep learning model. In these patients the comparison of the deep learning model and manual segmentations revealed average dice coefficients of 0.91 ± 0.08 for contrast-enhancing tumor volume and 0.82 ± 0.12 for total lesion volume. In the training group, interreader variabilities of the 2 manual readers were 0.92 ± 0.07 for contrast-enhancing tumor and 0.88 ± 0.05 for total lesion volume. CONCLUSION: Deep learning-based automated segmentation yielded high segmentation accuracy, comparable to manual interreader variability.
PURPOSE: Volumetric assessment of meningiomas represents a valuable tool for treatment planning and evaluation of tumor growth as it enables a more precise assessment of tumor size than conventional diameter methods. This study established a dedicated meningioma deep learning model based on routine magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) data and evaluated its performance for automated tumor segmentation. METHODS: The MRI datasets included T1-weighted/T2-weighted, T1-weighted contrast-enhanced (T1CE) and FLAIR of 126 patients with intracranial meningiomas (grade I: 97, grade II: 29). For automated segmentation, an established deep learning model architecture (3D deep convolutional neural network, DeepMedic, BioMedIA) operating on all four MR sequences was used. Segmentation included the following two components: (i) contrast-enhancing tumor volume in T1CE and (ii) total lesion volume (union of lesion volume in T1CE and FLAIR, including solid tumor parts and surrounding edema). Preprocessing of imaging data included registration, skull stripping, resampling, and normalization. After training of the deep learning model using manual segmentations by 2 independent readers from 70 patients (training group), the algorithm was evaluated on 56 patients (validation group) by comparing automated to ground truth manual segmentations, which were performed by 2 experienced readers in consensus. RESULTS: Of the 56 meningiomas in the validation group 55 were detected by the deep learning model. In these patients the comparison of the deep learning model and manual segmentations revealed average dice coefficients of 0.91 ± 0.08 for contrast-enhancing tumor volume and 0.82 ± 0.12 for total lesion volume. In the training group, interreader variabilities of the 2 manual readers were 0.92 ± 0.07 for contrast-enhancing tumor and 0.88 ± 0.05 for total lesion volume. CONCLUSION: Deep learning-based automated segmentation yielded high segmentation accuracy, comparable to manual interreader variability.
Entities:
Keywords:
Brain neoplasms; Deep learning; Magnetic resonance imaging; Meningioma
Authors: Eyal Lotan; Rajan Jain; Narges Razavian; Girish M Fatterpekar; Yvonne W Lui Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2018-10-17 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Kai Roman Laukamp; Frank Thiele; Georgy Shakirin; David Zopfs; Andrea Faymonville; Marco Timmer; David Maintz; Michael Perkuhn; Jan Borggrefe Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2018-06-25 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: David Bouget; André Pedersen; Sayied Abdol Mohieb Hosainey; Johanna Vanel; Ole Solheim; Ingerid Reinertsen Journal: J Med Imaging (Bellingham) Date: 2021-03-26
Authors: Jonadab Dos Santos Silva; Cláudia Abib Schreiner; Lázaro de Lima; Carlos Eduardo Pinheiro Leal Brigido; Christopher D Wilson; Luke McVeigh; Joseph Acchiardo; José Alberto Landeiro; Marcus André Acioly; Aaron Cohen-Gadol Journal: J Neurooncol Date: 2022-09-05 Impact factor: 4.506
Authors: Paul Windisch; Carole Koechli; Susanne Rogers; Christina Schröder; Robert Förster; Daniel R Zwahlen; Stephan Bodis Journal: Cancers (Basel) Date: 2022-05-27 Impact factor: 6.575
Authors: David Bouget; André Pedersen; Asgeir S Jakola; Vasileios Kavouridis; Kyrre E Emblem; Roelant S Eijgelaar; Ivar Kommers; Hilko Ardon; Frederik Barkhof; Lorenzo Bello; Mitchel S Berger; Marco Conti Nibali; Julia Furtner; Shawn Hervey-Jumper; Albert J S Idema; Barbara Kiesel; Alfred Kloet; Emmanuel Mandonnet; Domenique M J Müller; Pierre A Robe; Marco Rossi; Tommaso Sciortino; Wimar A Van den Brink; Michiel Wagemakers; Georg Widhalm; Marnix G Witte; Aeilko H Zwinderman; Philip C De Witt Hamer; Ole Solheim; Ingerid Reinertsen Journal: Front Neurol Date: 2022-07-27 Impact factor: 4.086
Authors: Danju Huang; Han Bai; Li Wang; Yu Hou; Lan Li; Yaoxiong Xia; Zhirui Yan; Wenrui Chen; Li Chang; Wenhui Li Journal: Technol Cancer Res Treat Date: 2021 Jan-Dec