Amy J Weisman1, Jihyun Kim2, Inki Lee3, Kathleen M McCarten4, Sandy Kessel4, Cindy L Schwartz5, Kara M Kelly6, Robert Jeraj1, Steve Y Cho2,7, Tyler J Bradshaw8. 1. Department of Medical Physics, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI, USA. 2. Department of Radiology, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI, USA. 3. Department of Nuclear Medicine Korea Cancer Centre Hospital, Korea Institute of Radiological and Medical Sciences, Seoul, Korea. 4. IROC-Rhode Island, Lincoln, RI, USA. 5. Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI, USA. 6. Department of Pediatrics, Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center, University at Buffalo Jacobs School of Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, Buffalo, NY, USA. 7. University of Wisconsin Carbone Comprehensive Cancer Center, Madison, WI, USA. 8. Department of Radiology, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI, USA. tbradshaw@wisc.edu.
Abstract
PURPOSE: For pediatric lymphoma, quantitative FDG PET/CT imaging features such as metabolic tumor volume (MTV) are important for prognosis and risk stratification strategies. However, feature extraction is difficult and time-consuming in cases of high disease burden. The purpose of this study was to fully automate the measurement of PET imaging features in PET/CT images of pediatric lymphoma. METHODS: 18F-FDG PET/CT baseline images of 100 pediatric Hodgkin lymphoma patients were retrospectively analyzed. Two nuclear medicine physicians identified and segmented FDG avid disease using PET thresholding methods. Both PET and CT images were used as inputs to a three-dimensional patch-based, multi-resolution pathway convolutional neural network architecture, DeepMedic. The model was trained to replicate physician segmentations using an ensemble of three networks trained with 5-fold cross-validation. The maximum SUV (SUVmax), MTV, total lesion glycolysis (TLG), surface-area-to-volume ratio (SA/MTV), and a measure of disease spread (Dmaxpatient) were extracted from the model output. Pearson's correlation coefficient and relative percent differences were calculated between automated and physician-extracted features. RESULTS: Median Dice similarity coefficient of patient contours between automated and physician contours was 0.86 (IQR 0.78-0.91). Automated SUVmax values matched exactly the physician determined values in 81/100 cases, with Pearson's correlation coefficient (R) of 0.95. Automated MTV was strongly correlated with physician MTV (R = 0.88), though it was slightly underestimated with a median (IQR) relative difference of - 4.3% (- 10.0-5.7%). Agreement of TLG was excellent (R = 0.94), with median (IQR) relative difference of - 0.4% (- 5.2-7.0%). Median relative percent differences were 6.8% (R = 0.91; IQR 1.6-4.3%) for SA/MTV, and 4.5% (R = 0.51; IQR - 7.5-40.9%) for Dmaxpatient, which was the most difficult feature to quantify automatically. CONCLUSIONS: An automated method using an ensemble of multi-resolution pathway 3D CNNs was able to quantify PET imaging features of lymphoma on baseline FDG PET/CT images with excellent agreement to reference physician PET segmentation. Automated methods with faster throughput for PET quantitation, such as MTV and TLG, show promise in more accessible clinical and research applications.
PURPOSE: For pediatric lymphoma, quantitative FDG PET/CT imaging features such as metabolic tumor volume (MTV) are important for prognosis and risk stratification strategies. However, feature extraction is difficult and time-consuming in cases of high disease burden. The purpose of this study was to fully automate the measurement of PET imaging features in PET/CT images of pediatric lymphoma. METHODS:18F-FDG PET/CT baseline images of 100 pediatric Hodgkin lymphomapatients were retrospectively analyzed. Two nuclear medicine physicians identified and segmented FDG avid disease using PET thresholding methods. Both PET and CT images were used as inputs to a three-dimensional patch-based, multi-resolution pathway convolutional neural network architecture, DeepMedic. The model was trained to replicate physician segmentations using an ensemble of three networks trained with 5-fold cross-validation. The maximum SUV (SUVmax), MTV, total lesion glycolysis (TLG), surface-area-to-volume ratio (SA/MTV), and a measure of disease spread (Dmaxpatient) were extracted from the model output. Pearson's correlation coefficient and relative percent differences were calculated between automated and physician-extracted features. RESULTS: Median Dice similarity coefficient of patient contours between automated and physician contours was 0.86 (IQR 0.78-0.91). Automated SUVmax values matched exactly the physician determined values in 81/100 cases, with Pearson's correlation coefficient (R) of 0.95. Automated MTV was strongly correlated with physician MTV (R = 0.88), though it was slightly underestimated with a median (IQR) relative difference of - 4.3% (- 10.0-5.7%). Agreement of TLG was excellent (R = 0.94), with median (IQR) relative difference of - 0.4% (- 5.2-7.0%). Median relative percent differences were 6.8% (R = 0.91; IQR 1.6-4.3%) for SA/MTV, and 4.5% (R = 0.51; IQR - 7.5-40.9%) for Dmaxpatient, which was the most difficult feature to quantify automatically. CONCLUSIONS: An automated method using an ensemble of multi-resolution pathway 3D CNNs was able to quantify PET imaging features of lymphoma on baseline FDG PET/CT images with excellent agreement to reference physician PET segmentation. Automated methods with faster throughput for PET quantitation, such as MTV and TLG, show promise in more accessible clinical and research applications.
Authors: Kara M Kelly; Peter D Cole; Qinglin Pei; Rizvan Bush; Kenneth B Roberts; David C Hodgson; Kathleen M McCarten; Steve Y Cho; Cindy Schwartz Journal: Br J Haematol Date: 2019-06-10 Impact factor: 6.998
Authors: Bruce D Cheson; Richard I Fisher; Sally F Barrington; Franco Cavalli; Lawrence H Schwartz; Emanuele Zucca; T Andrew Lister Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2014-09-20 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Alison J Moskowitz; Heiko Schöder; Somali Gavane; Katie L Thoren; Martin Fleisher; Joachim Yahalom; Susan J McCall; Briana R Cadzin; Stephanie Y Fox; John Gerecitano; Ravinder Grewal; Paul A Hamlin; Steven M Horwitz; Anita Kumar; Matthew Matasar; Andy Ni; Ariela Noy; M Lia Palomba; Miguel-Angel Perales; Carol S Portlock; Craig Sauter; David Straus; Anas Younes; Andrew D Zelenetz; Craig H Moskowitz Journal: Blood Date: 2017-09-05 Impact factor: 22.113
Authors: Cindy L Schwartz; Louis S Constine; Doojduen Villaluna; Wendy B London; Robert E Hutchison; Richard Sposto; Steven E Lipshultz; Charles S Turner; Pedro A deAlarcon; Allen Chauvenet Journal: Blood Date: 2009-07-07 Impact factor: 22.113
Authors: Diane Tseng; Leelanand P Rachakonda; Zheng Su; Ranjana Advani; Sandra Horning; Richard T Hoppe; Andrew Quon; Edward E Graves; Billy W Loo; Phuoc T Tran Journal: Radiat Oncol Date: 2012-01-19 Impact factor: 3.481
Authors: Mani Akhtari; Sarah A Milgrom; Chelsea C Pinnix; Jay P Reddy; Wenli Dong; Grace L Smith; Osama Mawlawi; Zeinab Abou Yehia; Jillian Gunther; Eleanor M Osborne; Therese Y Andraos; Christine F Wogan; Eric Rohren; Naveen Garg; Hubert Chuang; Joseph D Khoury; Yasuhiro Oki; Michelle Fanale; Bouthaina S Dabaja Journal: Blood Date: 2017-10-16 Impact factor: 25.476
Authors: Julian M M Rogasch; Patrick Hundsdoerfer; Frank Hofheinz; Florian Wedel; Imke Schatka; Holger Amthauer; Christian Furth Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2018-05-03 Impact factor: 4.430
Authors: Navid Hasani; Sriram S Paravastu; Faraz Farhadi; Fereshteh Yousefirizi; Michael A Morris; Arman Rahmim; Mark Roschewski; Ronald M Summers; Babak Saboury Journal: PET Clin Date: 2022-01
Authors: Navid Hasani; Faraz Farhadi; Michael A Morris; Moozhan Nikpanah; Arman Rhamim; Yanji Xu; Anne Pariser; Michael T Collins; Ronald M Summers; Elizabeth Jones; Eliot Siegel; Babak Saboury Journal: PET Clin Date: 2022-01
Authors: Julia Moran-Sanchez; Antonio Santisteban-Espejo; Miguel Angel Martin-Piedra; Jose Perez-Requena; Marcial Garcia-Rojo Journal: Biomolecules Date: 2021-05-25