| Literature DB >> 35578086 |
Elias Tappeiner1, Martin Welk2, Rainer Schubert2.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The segmentation of organs at risk (OAR) is a required precondition for the cancer treatment with image- guided radiation therapy. The automation of the segmentation task is therefore of high clinical relevance. Deep learning (DL)-based medical image segmentation is currently the most successful approach, but suffers from the over-presence of the background class and the anatomically given organ size difference, which is most severe in the head and neck (HAN) area.Entities:
Keywords: Class imbalance; Deep learning; Head and neck; Radiation therapy; Segmentation
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35578086 PMCID: PMC9515025 DOI: 10.1007/s11548-022-02649-5
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg ISSN: 1861-6410 Impact factor: 3.421
Fig. 1Average background and organ volume imbalance ratios of seven HAN organs (from left to right: background, Brainstem, Optic Chiasm, Optic Nerve left/right, Parotid Gland left/right, Mandible) for four different patch size sampling strategies, evaluated over one training epoch
Segmentation results on the combined on- and off-site test data of the MICCAI 2015 HAN challenge dataset [12], for the evaluated configurations in terms of DSC, 95HD and surface Dice (SD)
| Config (patch size, loss) | Organ | DSC | 95HD [mm] | SD |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Large, nnU-Dice+CE | Brainstem | 0.88 ± 0.02 | 3.29 ± 0.67 | 0.96 ± 0.03 |
| Optic Chiasm | 0.54 ± 0.21 | 3.48 ± 2.02 | 0.84 ± 0.25 | |
| Mandible | 0.94 ± 0.01 | 2.13 ± 1.04 | 0.91 ± 0.05 | |
| Optic Nerve_L | 0.68 ± 0.11 | 4.91 ± 3.95 | 0.92 ± 0.10 | |
| Optic Nerve_R | 0.70 ± 0.08 | 3.10 ± 2.46 | 0.96 ± 0.06 | |
| Parotid_L | 0.82 ± 0.08 | 5.36 ± 2.45 | 0.91 ± 0.06 | |
| Parotid_R | 0.84 ± 0.11 | 6.07 ± 4.77 | 0.91 ± 0.10 | |
| Large, ca-Dice+CE | Brainstem | 0.88 ± 0.02 | 3.16 ± 0.45 | 0.96 ± 0.06 |
| Optic Chiasm | 0.53 ± 0.21 | 69.42 ± 257.44 | 0.85 ± 0.25 | |
| Mandible | 0.94 ± 0.01 | 1.86 ± 0.65 | 0.91 ± 0.05 | |
| Optic Nerve_L | 0.72 ± 0.08 | |||
| Optic Nerve_R | 0.70 ± 0.07 | |||
| Parotid_L | 0.86 ± 0.04 | 4.43 ± 1.62 | 0.94 ± 0.04 | |
| Parotid_R | 0.83 ± 0.12 | 5.83 ± 5.27 | 0.91 ± 0.12 | |
| Small, nnU-Dice+CE | Brainstem | 0.88 ± 0.02 | ||
| Optic Chiasm | 0.53 ± 0.21 | |||
| Mandible | 0.94 ± 0.02 | 1.74 ± 0.75 | 0.92 ± 0.04 | |
| Optic Nerve_L | 0.71 ± 0.07 | 3.03 ± 2.08 | 0.96 ± 0.06 | |
| Optic Nerve_R | 2.29 ± 0.48 | 0.98 ± 0.02 | ||
| Parotid_L | 0.88 ± 0.02 | 4.34 ± 2.44 | 0.95 ± 0.03 | |
| Parotid_R | 4.24 ± 1.61 | 0.93 ± 0.05 | ||
| Small, ca-Dice+CE | Brainstem | 0.88 ± 0.02 | 3.33 ± 0.69 | 0.96 ± 0.06 |
| Optic Chiasm | 3.38 ± 1.86 | 0.87 ± 0.19 | ||
| Mandible | 0.94 ± 0.02 | 0.92 ± 0.04 | ||
| Optic Nerve_L | 2.86 ± 2.13 | 0.97 ± 0.06 | ||
| Optic Nerve_R | 0.72 ± 0.07 | 2.53 ± 1.45 | 0.98 ± 0.03 | |
| Parotid_L | ||||
| Parotid_R | ||||
| Large, nnU-Dice+CE | average | 0.77 ± 0.17 | 4.05 ± 3.05 | 0.92 ± 0.12 |
| Large, ca-Dice+CE | average | 0.78 ± 0.16 | 12.82 ± 97.3* | 0.93 ± 0.11* |
| Small, nnU-Dice+CE | average | 0.79 ± 0.16 | ||
| Small, ca-Dice+CE | average | 3.17 ± 1.70* | 0.94 ± 0.09* |
Bold values indicate the best results for the respective organ in each column and values marked with stars significance (Wilcoxon signed rank test with ) over the baseline
Fig. 2Violin plot of the output confidence distribution of the training and the test samples for the segmented organs of our experiments, with the distance of the average confidence from the training to the test data indicating the potential of overfitting
Average DSC and 95HD on the MICCAI HAN challenge dataset
| Literature | DSC | 95HD [mm] | Data | Organs |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Raudaschl et al.[ | 0.76 | – | 25/15 | 9 (2 partly) |
| Fritscher et al. [ | 0.66 ± 0.08 | – | 20/10 | 6 |
| Tappeiner et al.[ | 0.72 ± 0.18 | 6.30 ± 16.2 | 25/15 | 7 |
| Zhu et al. [ | 0.79 ± 0.05 | – | 38/10 | 9 (3 partly) |
| Tappeiner et al. [ | 0.75 ± 0.16 | 3.02 ± 1.92 | 25/15 | 7 |
| Guo et al. [ | 0.82 ± 0.05 | – | 33/15 | 9 (3 partly) |
| Gao et al. [ | 0.85 ± 0.06 | 2.17 ± 0.93 | 38/10 | 9 (3 partly) |
| Nikolov et al. [ | 0.81 ± 0.05 | – | (663)/15 | 8 (2 partly) |
| Chen et al. [ | 0.81 ± 0.05 | – | 33/10 | 9 (3 partly) |
| Tang et al. [ | 0.83 ± 0.05 | – | 33/15 | 9 (3 partly) |
| Our (small, ca-Dice+CE) | 0.80 ± 0.15 | 3.17 ± 1.69 | 25/15 | 7 |