| Literature DB >> 32293303 |
Guanyu Yang1,2, Chuanxia Wang3, Jian Yang4, Yang Chen3,5, Lijun Tang6, Pengfei Shao7, Jean-Louis Dillenseger5,8, Huazhong Shu3,5, Limin Luo3,5.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Renal cancer is one of the 10 most common cancers in human beings. The laparoscopic partial nephrectomy (LPN) is an effective way to treat renal cancer. Localization and delineation of the renal tumor from pre-operative CT Angiography (CTA) is an important step for LPN surgery planning. Recently, with the development of the technique of deep learning, deep neural networks can be trained to provide accurate pixel-wise renal tumor segmentation in CTA images. However, constructing the training dataset with a large amount of pixel-wise annotations is a time-consuming task for the radiologists. Therefore, weakly-supervised approaches attract more interest in research.Entities:
Keywords: Bounding box; Convolutional neural network; Renal tumor segmentation; Weakly-supervised
Mesh:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32293303 PMCID: PMC7161012 DOI: 10.1186/s12880-020-00435-w
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Med Imaging ISSN: 1471-2342 Impact factor: 1.930
Fig. 1Four contrast-enhanced CT images of different pathological renal tumors. The tumors are marked by yellow arrows in 3D views. The manual contours of the renal tumors delineated by a radiologist are displayed in 2D slices. The pathological subtypes of the renal tumors are clear cell renal cell carcinoma (RCC) in (a) and (b), chromophobe RCC in (c) and angiomyolipoma in (d)
Fig. 2a The original image with labeled kidney and renal tumor. The region in red represents renal tumor. b The cropped original image with the label for renal tumor segmentation
Fig. 3The bounding box with margin d is defined as weak annotations according to the label of renal tumors
Fig. 4Comparison of bounding boxes with different margins. The 2D image is the maximum slice. Contours in green correspond to bounding boxes
Fig. 5An overview of the proposed weakly-supervised method
DSCs between different weak labels and ground truths of the training dataset
| Bounding boxes | Pseudo masks | Fusion masks | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 0.666 | 0.862 | ||
| 0.466 | 0.801 | ||
| 0.341 | 0.679 |
Fig. 6Training losses of the final CNN model in stage3 with different parameters
Comparison of segmentation results of testing dataset with different margins
| DSC | HD | ASD | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0.788 | 65.806 | 6.265 | ||
| 0.822 | 34.187 | 3.889 | ||
| 0.834 | 40.617 | 3.361 | ||
| 0.733 | 32.459 | 5.332 | ||
| 0.784 | 70.948 | 7.988 | ||
| 0.820 | 37.633 | 3.879 | ||
| 0.695 | 58.286 | 7.499 | ||
| 0.720 | 81.611 | 7.804 | ||
| 0.741 | 36.127 | 4.672 | ||
Fig. 7The comparison of 2D segmentation results with different parameters: k = 0 with WCE loss (a), k = 3 with WCE loss (b), k = 3 with VWCE loss (c). Contours in green and red correspond to ground truths and segmentation results respectively
Fig. 8DSC of each case in the testing dataset with different parameters. The index of images is ranked according to the volume of renal tumors
Comparison of testing results with different methods
| DSC | HD | ASD | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Constrained-CNN [ | 0.705 | 102.178 | 8.271 |
| Constrained-CNN [ | 0.712 | 20.939 | 5.493 |
| SDI [ | 0.766 | 73.514 | 4.639 |
| SDI [ | 0.766 | 72.368 | 4.524 |
| Ours ( | 0.820 | 37.633 | 3.879 |
| Ours ( | |||
| UNet [ | 0.849 | 84.69 | 4.886 |
| UNet [ | 0.859 | 14.252 | 2.048 |
Fig. 9The comparison of the results from three testing images obtained by different methods: 3D ground truth (a), SDI (b), Constrained-CNN(c), the proposed method (d) and fully-supervised method (e). Contours in green and red correspond to ground truth and segmentation results respectively