David Bouget1, André Pedersen1, Sayied Abdol Mohieb Hosainey2, Johanna Vanel1, Ole Solheim3,4, Ingerid Reinertsen1. 1. SINTEF, Medical Technology Department, Trondheim, Norway. 2. Bristol Royal Hospital for Children, Department of Neurosurgery, Bristol, United Kingdom. 3. NTNU, Department of Neuromedicine and Movement Science, Trondheim, Norway. 4. St. Olavs Hospital, Department of Neurosurgery, Trondheim, Norway.
Abstract
Purpose: Automatic and consistent meningioma segmentation in T1-weighted magnetic resonance (MR) imaging volumes and corresponding volumetric assessment is of use for diagnosis, treatment planning, and tumor growth evaluation. We optimized the segmentation and processing speed performances using a large number of both surgically treated meningiomas and untreated meningiomas followed at the outpatient clinic. Approach: We studied two different three-dimensional (3D) neural network architectures: (i) a simple encoder-decoder similar to a 3D U-Net, and (ii) a lightweight multi-scale architecture [Pulmonary Lobe Segmentation Network (PLS-Net)]. In addition, we studied the impact of different training schemes. For the validation studies, we used 698 T1-weighted MR volumes from St. Olav University Hospital, Trondheim, Norway. The models were evaluated in terms of detection accuracy, segmentation accuracy, and training/inference speed. Results: While both architectures reached a similar Dice score of 70% on average, the PLS-Net was more accurate with an F 1 -score of up to 88%. The highest accuracy was achieved for the largest meningiomas. Speed-wise, the PLS-Net architecture tended to converge in about 50 h while 130 h were necessary for U-Net. Inference with PLS-Net takes less than a second on GPU and about 15 s on CPU. Conclusions: Overall, with the use of mixed precision training, it was possible to train competitive segmentation models in a relatively short amount of time using the lightweight PLS-Net architecture. In the future, the focus should be brought toward the segmentation of small meningiomas ( < 2 ml ) to improve clinical relevance for automatic and early diagnosis and speed of growth estimates.
Purpose: Automatic and consistent meningioma segmentation in T1-weighted magnetic resonance (MR) imaging volumes and corresponding volumetric assessment is of use for diagnosis, treatment planning, and tumor growth evaluation. We optimized the segmentation and processing speed performances using a large number of both surgically treated meningiomas and untreated meningiomas followed at the outpatient clinic. Approach: We studied two different three-dimensional (3D) neural network architectures: (i) a simple encoder-decoder similar to a 3D U-Net, and (ii) a lightweight multi-scale architecture [Pulmonary Lobe Segmentation Network (PLS-Net)]. In addition, we studied the impact of different training schemes. For the validation studies, we used 698 T1-weighted MR volumes from St. Olav University Hospital, Trondheim, Norway. The models were evaluated in terms of detection accuracy, segmentation accuracy, and training/inference speed. Results: While both architectures reached a similar Dice score of 70% on average, the PLS-Net was more accurate with an F 1 -score of up to 88%. The highest accuracy was achieved for the largest meningiomas. Speed-wise, the PLS-Net architecture tended to converge in about 50 h while 130 h were necessary for U-Net. Inference with PLS-Net takes less than a second on GPU and about 15 s on CPU. Conclusions: Overall, with the use of mixed precision training, it was possible to train competitive segmentation models in a relatively short amount of time using the lightweight PLS-Net architecture. In the future, the focus should be brought toward the segmentation of small meningiomas ( < 2 ml ) to improve clinical relevance for automatic and early diagnosis and speed of growth estimates.
Authors: Erik Magnus Berntsen; Anne Line Stensjøen; Maren Staurset Langlo; Solveig Quam Simonsen; Pål Christensen; Viggo Andreas Moholdt; Ole Solheim Journal: Acta Neurochir (Wien) Date: 2019-11-23 Impact factor: 2.216
Authors: Kai Roman Laukamp; Lenhard Pennig; Frank Thiele; Robert Reimer; Lukas Görtz; Georgy Shakirin; David Zopfs; Marco Timmer; Michael Perkuhn; Jan Borggrefe Journal: Clin Neuroradiol Date: 2020-02-14 Impact factor: 3.649
Authors: Konstantinos Kamnitsas; Christian Ledig; Virginia F J Newcombe; Joanna P Simpson; Andrew D Kane; David K Menon; Daniel Rueckert; Ben Glocker Journal: Med Image Anal Date: 2016-10-29 Impact factor: 8.545
Authors: Roland Goldbrunner; Giuseppe Minniti; Matthias Preusser; Michael D Jenkinson; Kita Sallabanda; Emmanuel Houdart; Andreas von Deimling; Pantelis Stavrinou; Florence Lefranc; Morten Lund-Johansen; Elizabeth Cohen-Jonathan Moyal; Dieta Brandsma; Roger Henriksson; Riccardo Soffietti; Michael Weller Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2016-08-30 Impact factor: 41.316
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