Nicholas A George-Jones1, Kai Wang2, Jing Wang2, Jacob B Hunter1. 1. Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas. 2. Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS: To determine if an automated vestibular schwannoma (VS) segmentation model has comparable performance to using the greatest linear dimension to detect growth. STUDY DESIGN: Case-control Study. METHODS: Patients were selected from an internal database who had an initial gadolinium-enhanced T1-weighted magnetic resonance imaging scan and a follow-up scan captured at least 5 months later. Two observers manually segmented the VS to compute volumes, and one observer's segmentations were used to train a convolutional neural network model to automatically segment the VS and determine the volume. The results of automatic segmentation were compared to the observer whose measurements were not used in model development to measure agreement. We then examined the sensitivity, specificity, and area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve (AUC) to compare automated volumetric growth detection versus using the greatest linear dimension. Growth detection determined by the external observer's measurements served as the gold standard. RESULTS: A total of 65 patients and 130 scans were studied. The automated method of segmentation demonstrated excellent agreement with the observer whose measurements were not used for model development for the initial scan (interclass correlational coefficient [ICC] = 0.995; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.991-0.997) and follow-up scan (ICC = 0.960; 95% CI: 0.935-0.975). The automated method of segmentation demonstrated increased sensitivity (72.2% vs. 63.9%), specificity (79.3% vs. 69.0%), and AUC (0.822 vs. 0.701) compared to using the greatest linear dimension for growth detection. CONCLUSIONS: In detecting VS growth, a convolutional neural network model outperformed using the greatest linear dimension, demonstrating a potential application of artificial intelligence methods to VS surveillance. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4 Laryngoscope, 131:E619-E624, 2021.
OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS: To determine if an automated vestibular schwannoma (VS) segmentation model has comparable performance to using the greatest linear dimension to detect growth. STUDY DESIGN: Case-control Study. METHODS:Patients were selected from an internal database who had an initial gadolinium-enhanced T1-weighted magnetic resonance imaging scan and a follow-up scan captured at least 5 months later. Two observers manually segmented the VS to compute volumes, and one observer's segmentations were used to train a convolutional neural network model to automatically segment the VS and determine the volume. The results of automatic segmentation were compared to the observer whose measurements were not used in model development to measure agreement. We then examined the sensitivity, specificity, and area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve (AUC) to compare automated volumetric growth detection versus using the greatest linear dimension. Growth detection determined by the external observer's measurements served as the gold standard. RESULTS: A total of 65 patients and 130 scans were studied. The automated method of segmentation demonstrated excellent agreement with the observer whose measurements were not used for model development for the initial scan (interclass correlational coefficient [ICC] = 0.995; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.991-0.997) and follow-up scan (ICC = 0.960; 95% CI: 0.935-0.975). The automated method of segmentation demonstrated increased sensitivity (72.2% vs. 63.9%), specificity (79.3% vs. 69.0%), and AUC (0.822 vs. 0.701) compared to using the greatest linear dimension for growth detection. CONCLUSIONS: In detecting VS growth, a convolutional neural network model outperformed using the greatest linear dimension, demonstrating a potential application of artificial intelligence methods to VS surveillance. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4 Laryngoscope, 131:E619-E624, 2021.
Authors: Olaf M Neve; Yunjie Chen; Qian Tao; Stephan R Romeijn; Nick P de Boer; Willem Grootjans; Mark C Kruit; Boudewijn P F Lelieveldt; Jeroen C Jansen; Erik F Hensen; Berit M Verbist; Marius Staring Journal: Radiol Artif Intell Date: 2022-06-22
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: Carole Koechli; Erwin Vu; Philipp Sager; Lukas Näf; Tim Fischer; Paul M Putora; Felix Ehret; Christoph Fürweger; Christina Schröder; Robert Förster; Daniel R Zwahlen; Alexander Muacevic; Paul Windisch Journal: Cancers (Basel) Date: 2022-04-20 Impact factor: 6.575