| Literature DB >> 33578323 |
Aditi Deshpande1, Nima Jamilpour1, Bin Jiang2, Patrik Michel3, Ashraf Eskandari3, Chelsea Kidwell4, Max Wintermark2, Kaveh Laksari5.
Abstract
Accurate segmentation of cerebral vasculature and a quantitative assessment of its morphology is critical to various diagnostic and therapeutic purposes and is pertinent to studying brain health and disease. However, this is still a challenging task due to the complexity of the vascular imaging data. We propose an automated method for cerebral vascular segmentation without the need of any manual intervention as well as a method to skeletonize the binary segmented map to extract vascular geometric features and characterize vessel structure. We combine a Hessian-based probabilistic vessel-enhancing filtering with an active-contour-based technique to segment magnetic resonance and computed tomography angiograms (MRA and CTA) and subsequently extract the vessel centerlines and diameters to calculate the geometrical properties of the vasculature. Our method was validated using a 3D phantom of the Circle-of-Willis region, demonstrating 84% mean Dice similarity coefficient (DSC) and 85% mean Pearson's correlation coefficient (PCC) with minimal modified Hausdorff distance (MHD) error (3 surface pixels at most), and showed superior performance compared to existing segmentation algorithms upon quantitative comparison using DSC, PCC and MHD. We subsequently applied our algorithm to a dataset of 40 subjects, including 1) MRA scans of healthy subjects (n = 10, age = 30 ± 9), 2) MRA scans of stroke patients (n = 10, age = 51 ± 15), 3) CTA scans of healthy subjects (n = 10, age = 62 ± 12), and 4) CTA scans of stroke patients (n = 10, age = 68 ± 11), and obtained a quantitative comparison between the stroke and normal vasculature for both imaging modalities. The vascular network in stroke patients compared to age-adjusted healthy subjects was found to have a significantly (p < 0.05) higher tortuosity (3.24 ± 0.88 rad/cm vs. 7.17 ± 1.61 rad/cm for MRA, and 4.36 ± 1.32 rad/cm vs. 7.80 ± 0.92 rad/cm for CTA), higher fractal dimension (1.36 ± 0.28 vs. 1.71 ± 0.14 for MRA, and 1.56 ± 0.05 vs. 1.69 ± 0.20 for CTA), lower total length (3.46 ± 0.99 m vs. 2.20 ± 0.67 m for CTA), lower total volume (61.80 ± 18.79 ml vs. 34.43 ± 22.9 ml for CTA), lower average diameter (2.4 ± 0.21 mm vs. 2.18 ± 0.07 mm for CTA), and lower average branch length (4.81 ± 1.97 mm vs. 8.68 ± 2.03 mm for MRA), respectively. We additionally studied the change in vascular features with respect to aging and imaging modality. While we observed differences between features as a result of aging, statistical analysis did not show any significant differences, whereas we found that the number of branches were significantly different (p < 0.05) between the two imaging modalities (201 ± 73 for MRA vs. 189 ± 69 for CTA). Our segmentation and feature extraction algorithm can be applied on any imaging modality and can be used in the future to automatically obtain the 3D segmented vasculature for diagnosis and treatment planning as well as to study morphological changes due to stroke and other cerebrovascular diseases (CVD) in the clinic.Entities:
Keywords: Automatic segmentation; Cerebral vasculature; Stroke; Stroke vasculature; Vascular feature extraction
Year: 2021 PMID: 33578323 PMCID: PMC7875826 DOI: 10.1016/j.nicl.2021.102573
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Neuroimage Clin ISSN: 2213-1582 Impact factor: 4.881
A summary of related work in the literature on cerebral vascular segmentation. The geometric feature extraction column indicates whether the paper presented any geometric features of the vasculature and the skeletonization column indicates whether this method obtains the centerline and diameter information needed for CFD and mesh reconstruction. The last two columns specify the corresponding validation protocol and the major limitations which we tried to address in our method.
| Authors | Method | Modality | Skeletonization | Geometric Feature Extraction | Validation Protocol | Major Limitations | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Centerline tracking and modeling | MRA | Manual or Semi-Automatic | ✓ | × | Phantom | Manual intervention required | |
| ATLAS registration with anatomical modeling and hit-or-miss transform | PC-MRA | ✓ | × | Manual | Manual intervention required | ||
| Semi-automated Open-Curve Active Contour Vessel Tracing | 3D MRA | ✓ | ✓ | Manual | Some manual intervention required, only tested on patients with intracranial arterial stenosis | ||
| Statistical model analysis and curve evaluation | MRA | × | × | Manual | Intensity based statistical analysis and local curve evaluation resulting in under-segmentation | ||
| Neuron_Morpho plugin in ImageJ for segmentation (discontinued), morphometric analysis and feature extraction | MRA | ✓ | ✓ | NA | Insufficient Validation, performance accuracy unclear | ||
| Multiscale composite filter and mesh generation | MRA | Fully Automatic | ✓ | Limited | Manual, phantom | Not tested on CT data, limited feature extraction | |
| Otsu and Gumbel distribution-based threshold | MRA | × | × | Manual | Misclassification of skull pixels, under- segmentation of small vessels | ||
| Deep learning 3D U-Net architecture without manual annotation | MRA (CTA for training data) | × | × | Manual | Thresholding based filtering to generate training data, insufficient validation | ||
| Random forest classifier with local histogram features | 4D CT | × | × | Manual | No geometrical information, manual validation | ||
| Weighted Symmetry Filter | MRA, Retinal images | × | × | Manual, phantom | No skeleton or geometrical information | ||
| Deep learning-based U-net architecture | MRA | × | × | Manual | Poor inter-modal performance (monocentric data), no skeleton or geometrical information, no healthy dataset |
A comparison of geometric features of the cerebral vascular tree of healthy subjects vs. stroke patients. Values are presented as average ± standard deviation of 10 subjects in each group with the bold font highlighting features that are significantly different between groups (p < 0.05).
| Healthy MRA | Stroke MRA | F-value | Healthy CTA | Stroke CTA | F-value | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Number of subjects (female) | 10 (6) | 10 (5) | 10 (4) | 10 (4) | ||||
| Age (years) | 30 ± 9.3 | 51 ± 15.5 | 0.001 | 62 ± 12 | 65 ± 13.3 | 0.620 | ||
| Total length (m) | 3.05 ± 0.38 | 2.88 ± 0.86 | 0.45 | 0.571 | 3.46 ± 0.99 | 2.20 ± 0.67 | 9.441 | |
| Number of branches | 139 ± 76 | 258 ± 63 | 14.952 | 171 ± 54.9 | 211 ± 75.69 | 0.209 | 1.695 | |
| Average branch length (mm) | 14.81 ± 1.97 | 8.68 ± 2.03 | 48.087 | 8.72 ± 1.72 | 9.89 ± 2.07 | 0.159 | 2.157 | |
| Maximum branch length (mm) | 59.25 ± 10.78 | 88.72 ± 30.87 | 9.020 | 71.11 ± 10.9 | 59.38 ± 6.10 | 8.367 | ||
| Average diameter (mm) | 2.75 ± 0.37 | 2.27 ± 0.15 | 10.903 | 2.4 ± 0.21 | 2.18 ± 0.07 | 1.974 | ||
| Total volume (ml) | 67.07 ± 25.55 | 48.31 ± 18.92 | 0.07 | 3.482 | 61.80 ± 18.79 | 38.00 ± 21.83 | 6.823 | |
| Fractal dimension | 1.36 ± 0.28 | 1.71 ± 0.14 | 10.619 | 1.56 ± 0.05 | 1.69 ± 0.20 | 4.434 | ||
| Tortuosity (rad/cm) | 3.24 ± 0.88 | 7.17 ± 1.61 | 33.260 | 4.36 ± 1.32 | 5.80 ± 0.92 | 7.101 |
Fig. 1Validation of segmentation algorithm using a 3D phantom. (A) Extracted vasculature overlaid on TOF image of an axial slice of the brain and the 3D CoW phantom shown relative to the cerebral vasculature along with its extracted centerlines (embedded panel) for a visual representation, (B) original 3D phantom of the CoW with a 2D slice showing a cross section, (C) the 3D volume reconstructed using the CT scan of the 3D printed phantom with the corresponding 2D cross section shown for visual comparison of the 2D slices, (D) Dice similarity coefficient (DSC) per 2D axial slice corresponding to the reconstruction of the 3D phantoms on the left post CT scanning the 3D printed phantom, (E) box plots of the DSC and the Pearson correlation coefficient (PCC) showing the data points corresponding to each slice laid over a 95% confidence interval, along with (F) histogram of the DSC and PCC demonstrating the accuracy of the segmentation along with a distribution fit and, (G) corresponding 2D slices in B and C, showing an overlap of the original and segmented cross section, indicating the error for visualization (the ‘error pixels’ can be seen in red). (For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)
Validation and error analysis results for the 3D phantom as well as the quantification of performance with varying levels of added noise. Lastly, segmentation results using CT scan images of the 3D printed phantom to account for CT induced noise and comparison with ground truth data. Values are presented as the slice-average ± standard deviation.
| Dice similarity coefficient (%) | Pearson’s correlation (%) | Modified Hausdorff distance (pixels) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Phantom STL | 84.3 ± 0.3 | 83.9 ± 0.3 | 3 ± 2 |
| Phantom + 10% noise | 84.7 ± 0.5 | 84.2 ± 0.4 | 3 ± 2 |
| Phantom + 20% noise | 83.7 ± 0.5 | 83.1 ± 0.4 | 3 ± 2 |
| 3D print + CT of phantom | 84.6 ± 0.3 | 84.5 ± 0.3 | 2 ± 2 |
Fig. 2The segmentation results from existing methods (implemented in ImageJ/FIJI) along with the current proposed method for visual comparison.
Performance comparison of segmentation results and subsequent error analysis using existing methods in ImageJ/FIJI. Results are reported in as slice average ± standard deviation.
| Segmentation method | Dice Similarity Coefficient (%) | Pearson’s correlation (%) | Modified Hausdorff Distance (pixels) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Auto local thresholding | 58 ± 13.1 | 57.6 ± 11.2 | 5 ± 4 |
| Region growing | 64.1 ± 15.6 | 63.3 ± 11.9 | 4 ± 3 |
| Otsu/Renyi Entropy | 65.2 ± 11.3 | 66.4 ± 10.3 | 4 ± 3 |
| Proposed method | 84.3 ± 0.3 | 83.9 ± 0.3 | 3 ± 2 |
Fig. 3Vessel segmentation and skeletonization: (A) raw stack of 2D MRA/CTA images, (B) vesselness probability map obtained after pre-processing and filtering, (C) binarized volume obtained using active contours segmentation, and (D) skeleton of the cerebral vasculature centerlines and surface cross-sections depicted by 3D circles and corresponding diameter values from segmentation.
Fig. 4A visual comparison of the vesselness map and corresponding binary volume of the cerebral vasculature: (A) two healthy subjects, and (B) two stroke patients. The red arrows on the stroke image data depicts the location of the occlusion. (For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)
Results (p-values) from a three-factor ANOVA to test for significant differences in the features by accounting for age, imaging modality (CTA vs. MRA) and disease (healthy vs. stroke). The features which are significantly different have been highlighted in bold.
| Effect Factor | Total length | Number of branches | Average branch length | Maximum branch length | Average diameter | Total volume | Fractal dimension | Tortuosity |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disease | 0.154 | 0.055 | 0.261 | |||||
| Age | 0.618 | 0.432 | 0.283 | 0.869 | 0.424 | 0.781 | 0.118 | 0.461 |
| Modality | 0.112 | 0.069 | 0.209 | 0.966 | 0.723 | 0.905 | 0.223 |