| Literature DB >> 34573963 |
Riaan Zoetmulder1,2,3, Praneeta R Konduri1,2, Iris V Obdeijn1, Efstratios Gavves3, Ivana Išgum1,2,3, Charles B L M Majoie2, Diederik W J Dippel4, Yvo B W E M Roos5, Mayank Goyal6,7, Peter J Mitchell8, Bruce C V Campbell9, Demetrius K Lopes10, Gernot Reimann11, Tudor G Jovin12, Jeffrey L Saver13, Keith W Muir14, Phil White15,16, Serge Bracard17, Bailiang Chen18, Scott Brown19, Wouter J Schonewille20, Erik van der Hoeven21, Volker Puetz22, Henk A Marquering1,2.
Abstract
Final lesion volume (FLV) is a surrogate outcome measure in anterior circulation stroke (ACS). In posterior circulation stroke (PCS), this relation is plausibly understudied due to a lack of methods that automatically quantify FLV. The applicability of deep learning approaches to PCS is limited due to its lower incidence compared to ACS. We evaluated strategies to develop a convolutional neural network (CNN) for PCS lesion segmentation by using image data from both ACS and PCS patients. We included follow-up non-contrast computed tomography scans of 1018 patients with ACS and 107 patients with PCS. To assess whether an ACS lesion segmentation generalizes to PCS, a CNN was trained on ACS data (ACS-CNN). Second, to evaluate the performance of only including PCS patients, a CNN was trained on PCS data. Third, to evaluate the performance when combining the datasets, a CNN was trained on both datasets. Finally, to evaluate the performance of transfer learning, the ACS-CNN was fine-tuned using PCS patients. The transfer learning strategy outperformed the other strategies in volume agreement with an intra-class correlation of 0.88 (95% CI: 0.83-0.92) vs. 0.55 to 0.83 and a lesion detection rate of 87% vs. 41-77 for the other strategies. Hence, transfer learning improved the FLV quantification and detection rate of PCS lesions compared to the other strategies.Entities:
Keywords: CT; deep learning; posterior stroke; segmentation; transfer learning
Year: 2021 PMID: 34573963 PMCID: PMC8466415 DOI: 10.3390/diagnostics11091621
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Diagnostics (Basel) ISSN: 2075-4418
Figure A1(A) Flowchart showing the exclusion criteria used for the HERMES dataset. Exclusion criteria were: No FU-NCCT available, which was acquired between 12 h and 2 weeks (n = 637), an intracranial region segmentation error (n = 3), and a registration error (n = 7). In total, 1018 patients were included. These were split into a training set (n = 876), a validation set (n = 50), and a testing set (n = 101). (B) Flowchart showing the exclusion criteria used for the BASICS dataset. Exclusion criteria were: No FU-NCCT available (n = 55) or an image quality that was too low (n = 6). In total, 107 patients were included. These were split into five training and testing sets for the five-fold cross-validation. Patients could only belong to one test set.
Baseline characteristics, treatment and time data for patients with posterior circulation stroke and anterior circulation stroke. Prior to posterior stroke, transient ischemic attack (TIA), posterior circulation TIA, and atrial fibrillation (history or 12 lead electrocardiogram (ECG)) were not available (NAV) for the HERMES dataset. We use abbreviations for the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS), modified Ranking Scale (mRS) and, Intravenous Thrombolysis (IVT).
| Parameter | Posterior Stroke | Anterior Stroke |
|---|---|---|
| Clinical | ||
| Age, years, mean (Standard Deviation) | 65.65 (12.2) | 66.1 (13.3) |
| Sex, F, No. [%] | 34/107 [31.8] | 458/1018 [45] |
| NIHSS at baseline, mean [median] (N) | 21.4 [19] (107) | 17 [17] (1015) |
| Prior Conditions | ||
| Diabetes mellitus, No. [%] | 28/107 [26.2] | 169/1018 [16.6] |
| Hypertension, No. [%] | 64/107 [59.8] | 564/1018 [55.4] |
| Stroke, No. [%] | 21/107 [19.6] | 121/1018 [11.9] |
| Posterior circulation stroke, No. [%] | 7/107 [6.5] | NAV |
| TIA, No. [%] | 10/106 [9.4] | NAV |
| Posterior circulation TIA, No. [%] | 2/106 [1.9] | NAV |
| Atrial fibrillation, No. [%] | 13/107 [12.1] | 314/1018 [30.8] |
| Atrial fibrillation (history or 12 lead ECG), No. [%] | 23/107 [21.5] | NAV |
| Pre-Stroke mRS | ||
| 0, No. [%] | 80/107 [74.8] | 836/1017 [82.1] |
| 1, No. [%] | 11/107 [10.3] | 129/1017 [12.7] |
| 2, No. [%] | 13/107 [12.1] | 29/1017 [2.9] |
| 3, No. [%] | 3/107 [2.8] | 23/1017 [2.3] |
| Treatment | ||
| IVT, No. [%] | 92/107 [86] | 872/1018 [85.7] |
| Time | ||
| Stroke onset to IVT, min., mean [Standard Deviation] (N) | 176.9 [176.102] (90) | 112.2 [57.2] (871) |
Imaging parameters used to acquire the NCCT scans of the included patients from the BASICS trial. Imaging parameters were missing for two patients.
| Manufacturer | Model | Patients | Exposure Time (mS) | Exposure (mA) | Tube Current | kVp |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Philips | iCT 256 | 29 | 1913 (IQR: 1025–1913) | 375 (IQR: 251–490) | 256 (IQR: 244–256) | 100 (IQR: 100–120) |
| GE | LightSpeed VCT | 17 | 1000 (IQR: 1000–2000) | 175 (IQR: 171–175) | 351 (IQR: 179–351) | 120 (IQR: 120–120) |
| SIEMENS | SOMATOM Definition Flash | 13 | 2000 (IQR: 2000–2000) | 340 (IQR: 285–430) | 172 (IQR: 143–229) | 120 (IQR: 100–120) |
| TOSHIBA | Aquilion | 11 | 750 (IQR: 750–750) | 187 (IQR: 187–225) | 250 (IQR: 250–300) | 120 (IQR: 120–120) |
| SIEMENS | Sensation 64 | 6 | 1000 (IQR: 1000–1000) | 380 (IQR: 380–380) | 352 (IQR: 323–380) | 120 (IQR: 120–120) |
| Philips | Brilliance 64 | 5 | 1678 (IQR: 1000–1678) | 351 (IQR: 250–351) | 209 (IQR: 200–209) | 120 (IQR: 120–120) |
| SIEMENS | SOMATOM Force | 4 | 2000 (IQR: 1750–2000) | 340 (IQR: 327–380) | 170 (IQR: 163.5–196) | 100 (IQR: 100–105) |
| SIEMENS | SOMATOM Definition AS+ | 4 | 1000 (IQR: 1000–1000) | 250 (IQR: 233–290) | 138 (IQR: 129–155) | 120 (IQR: 115–120) |
| Philips | IQon—Spectral CT | 4 | 1117 (IQR: 1117–1117) | 200 (IQR: 200–200) | 179 (IQR: 179–179) | 120 (IQR: 120–120) |
| Other | Various | 12 | 1000 (IQR: 1000–1000) | 260 (IQR: 158–353) | 260 (IQR: 220–325) | 120 (IQR: 120–120) |
Lesion location in the posterior fossa, which was scored manually by using the PC-ASPECTS.
| Lesion Location | Count/Total |
|---|---|
| No lesion | 15/107 |
| Left thalamus | 33/107 |
| Left cerebellum | 40/107 |
| Left PCA territory | 19/107 |
| Right thalamus | 26/107 |
| Right cerebellum | 40/107 |
| Right PCA territory | 19/107 |
| Midbrain | 34/107 |
| Pons | 46/107 |
| Other | 4/107 |
Figure A2(A) 3D-Unet Architecture. The downsampling path (left) consisted of 3DResNet blocks with max pooling (green). The upsampling path (right) consisted of ResNet blocks followed by transposed convolutions (red). The features created in the downsampling path are colored blue and the features created in the upsampling path are colored yellow. The dotted arrows indicate the skip connections. The feature maps from the downsampling path were concatenated to the feature maps in the upsampling path. The input image and output probability map are colored purple. (B) 3D ResNet block.
Figure 1Comparison of the automated and reference segmentation volume for the Transfer Learned CNN (TL-CNN), Posterior Circulation Stroke CNN (PCS-CNN), Combined Datasets CNN (CD-CNN), and Anterior Circulation Stroke CNN (ACS-CNN). Left column: Scatter plots comparing lesion volumes derived from the reference segmentations (y-axis) and from the automatic segmentations determined by the CNN (x-axis). Right column: Bland–Altman plots of the lesion volumes. The volumes corresponding to the reference and automatic segmentations are shown on the x-axis and the volume difference is shown on the y-axis.
The ICC, Dice coefficients, bias, and limits of agreement between the automatically quantified and manually segmented volumes, respectively for the Transfer Learned (TL-CNN), Anterior Circulation Stroke (ACS-CNN), Combined Dataset (CD-CNN), and Posterior Circulation Stroke (PCS-CNN) Convolutional Neural Networks, tested on the PCS test set.
| Method | ICC | Dice | Bias | Limits of Agreement |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| TL-CNN | 0.88 (95% CI: 0.83–0.92) | 0.25 ± 0.07 | 0.84 mL | −28.7 to 30.4 mL |
| PCS-CNN | 0.80 (95% CI: 0.72–0.86) | 0.21 ± 0.06 | 3.8 mL | −31.9 to 39.4 mL |
| CD-CNN | 0.83 (95% CI: 0.76–0.88) | 0.16 ± 0.06 | 6.4 mL | −27.3 to 40.2 mL |
| ACS-CNN | 0.55 (95% CI: 0.4–0.67) | 0.07 ± 0.03 | 13.5 mL | −32.2 to 59.1 mL |
Figure 2Percentage of detected lesions (y-axis) as a function of the minimum volume requirement (x-axis) and the minimum percentage of overlapping voxels for the Transfer Learned CNN (TL-CNN), Posterior Circulation Stroke CNN (PCS-CNN), Combined Datasets CNN (CD-CNN), and Anterior Circulation Stroke CNN (ACS-CNN) (green, blue, red, and gray lines). For all methods, a higher lesion volume cutoff results in a higher percentage of detected lesions. The lower overlapping voxel requirement, the higher the percentage of detected lesions (dotted versus solid lines).
Figure 3An example of automatic segmentation results obtained by the four CNNs on the PCS test set. From the left to the right column: the original scan, the automatic segmentation results from the TL-CNN, PCS-CNN, CD-CNN, and ACS-CNN are shown. The segmentation maps show true positives (green), false positives (blue), and false negatives (orange). The scans were plotted using a window center around 35, with a window width of 30.
Wilcoxon rank sum test on pairwise differences between the Dice coefficient and the bias of the volume differences. The W-statistic and p-value are shown in this table. The TL-CNN produced a significantly greater Dice coefficient than the other methods. The PCS-CNN produced a significantly greater Dice coefficient than the CD-CNN and ACS-CNN, and the CD-CNN produced a significantly greater Dice coefficient than the ACS-CNN. The TL-CNN produced a significantly smaller bias than the CD-CNN and ACS-CNN, the PCS-CNN produced a significantly smaller bias than the CD-CNN and ACS-CNN, and finally, the CD-CNN produced a significantly smaller bias than the ACS-CNN.
| Method 1 | Method 2 | Dice Coefficient | Bias | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| W | W | ||||
| TL-CNN | PCS-CNN | 766 | <0.05 | 2205 | 0.28 |
| TL-CNN | CD-CNN | 216 | <0.01 | 1018 | <0.01 |
| TL-CNN | ACS-CNN | 62 | <0.01 | 938 | <0.01 |
| PCS-CNN | CD-CNN | 535 | <0.01 | 1958 | <0.05 |
| PCS-CNN | ACS-CNN | 114 | <0.01 | 1350 | <0.01 |
| CD-CNN | ACS-CNN | 88 | <0.01 | 1443 | <0.01 |