Youngjin Yoo1, Pascal Ceccaldi1, Siqi Liu1, Thomas J Re1, Yue Cao2,3,4, James M Balter2,4, Eli Gibson1. 1. Siemens Healthineers, Digital Technology and Innovation, Princeton, New Jersey, United States. 2. University of Michigan, Department of Radiation Oncology, Ann Arbor, Michigan, United States. 3. University of Michigan, Department of Radiology, Ann Arbor, Michigan, United States. 4. University of Michigan, Department of Biomedical Engineering, Ann Arbor, Michigan, United States.
Abstract
Purpose: We investigate the impact of various deep-learning-based methods for detecting and segmenting metastases with different lesion volume sizes on 3D brain MR images. Approach: A 2.5D U-Net and a 3D U-Net were selected. We also evaluated weak learner fusion of the prediction features generated by the 2.5D and the 3D networks. A 3D fully convolutional one-stage (FCOS) detector was selected as a representative of bounding-box regression-based detection methods. A total of 422 3D post-contrast T1-weighted scans from patients with brain metastases were used. Performances were analyzed based on lesion volume, total metastatic volume per patient, and number of lesions per patient. Results: The performance of detection of the 2.5D and 3D U-Net methods had recall of > 0.83 and precision of > 0.44 for lesion volume > 0.3 cm 3 but deteriorated as metastasis size decreased below 0.3 cm 3 to 0.58 to 0.74 in recall and 0.16 to 0.25 in precision. Compared the two U-Nets for detection capability, high precision was achieved by the 2.5D network, but high recall was achieved by the 3D network for all lesion sizes. The weak learner fusion achieved a balanced performance between the 2.5D and 3D U-Nets; particularly, it increased precision to 0.83 for lesion volumes of 0.1 to 0.3 cm 3 but decreased recall to 0.59. The 3D FCOS detector did not outperform the U-Net methods in detecting either the small or large metastases presumably because of the limited data size. Conclusions: Our study provides the performances of four deep learning methods in relationship to lesion size, total metastasis volume, and number of lesions per patient, providing insight into further development of the deep learning networks.
Purpose: We investigate the impact of various deep-learning-based methods for detecting and segmenting metastases with different lesion volume sizes on 3D brain MR images. Approach: A 2.5D U-Net and a 3D U-Net were selected. We also evaluated weak learner fusion of the prediction features generated by the 2.5D and the 3D networks. A 3D fully convolutional one-stage (FCOS) detector was selected as a representative of bounding-box regression-based detection methods. A total of 422 3D post-contrast T1-weighted scans from patients with brain metastases were used. Performances were analyzed based on lesion volume, total metastatic volume per patient, and number of lesions per patient. Results: The performance of detection of the 2.5D and 3D U-Net methods had recall of > 0.83 and precision of > 0.44 for lesion volume > 0.3 cm 3 but deteriorated as metastasis size decreased below 0.3 cm 3 to 0.58 to 0.74 in recall and 0.16 to 0.25 in precision. Compared the two U-Nets for detection capability, high precision was achieved by the 2.5D network, but high recall was achieved by the 3D network for all lesion sizes. The weak learner fusion achieved a balanced performance between the 2.5D and 3D U-Nets; particularly, it increased precision to 0.83 for lesion volumes of 0.1 to 0.3 cm 3 but decreased recall to 0.59. The 3D FCOS detector did not outperform the U-Net methods in detecting either the small or large metastases presumably because of the limited data size. Conclusions: Our study provides the performances of four deep learning methods in relationship to lesion size, total metastasis volume, and number of lesions per patient, providing insight into further development of the deep learning networks.
Authors: Zachary A Seymour; Shannon E Fogh; Sarah K Westcott; Steve Braunstein; David A Larson; Igor J Barani; Jean Nakamura; Penny K Sneed Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2015-05-07 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Botian Xu; Yaqiong Chai; Cristina M Galarza; Chau Q Vu; Benita Tamrazi; Bilwaj Gaonkar; Luke Macyszyn; Thomas D Coates; Natasha Lepore; John C Wood Journal: Proc IEEE Int Symp Biomed Imaging Date: 2018-05-24
Authors: Nils D Arvold; Eudocia Q Lee; Minesh P Mehta; Kim Margolin; Brian M Alexander; Nancy U Lin; Carey K Anders; Riccardo Soffietti; D Ross Camidge; Michael A Vogelbaum; Ian F Dunn; Patrick Y Wen Journal: Neuro Oncol Date: 2016-08 Impact factor: 12.300
Authors: Thorsten Falk; Dominic Mai; Robert Bensch; Özgün Çiçek; Ahmed Abdulkadir; Yassine Marrakchi; Anton Böhm; Jan Deubner; Zoe Jäckel; Katharina Seiwald; Alexander Dovzhenko; Olaf Tietz; Cristina Dal Bosco; Sean Walsh; Deniz Saltukoglu; Tuan Leng Tay; Marco Prinz; Klaus Palme; Matias Simons; Ilka Diester; Thomas Brox; Olaf Ronneberger Journal: Nat Methods Date: 2018-12-17 Impact factor: 28.547
Authors: Daniel N Cagney; Allison M Martin; Paul J Catalano; Amanda J Redig; Nancy U Lin; Eudocia Q Lee; Patrick Y Wen; Ian F Dunn; Wenya Linda Bi; Stephanie E Weiss; Daphne A Haas-Kogan; Brian M Alexander; Ayal A Aizer Journal: Neuro Oncol Date: 2017-10-19 Impact factor: 12.300
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: Khaled Bousabarah; Maximilian Ruge; Julia-Sarita Brand; Mauritius Hoevels; Daniel Rueß; Jan Borggrefe; Nils Große Hokamp; Veerle Visser-Vandewalle; David Maintz; Harald Treuer; Martin Kocher Journal: Radiat Oncol Date: 2020-04-20 Impact factor: 3.481