| Literature DB >> 36035088 |
Roque Rodríguez Outeiral1, Paula Bos2,3, Hedda J van der Hulst2, Abrahim Al-Mamgani1, Bas Jasperse2, Rita Simões1, Uulke A van der Heide1.
Abstract
Background and purpose: Contouring oropharyngeal primary tumors in radiotherapy is currently done manually which is time-consuming. Autocontouring techniques based on deep learning methods are a desirable alternative, but these methods can render suboptimal results when the structure to segment is considerably smaller than the rest of the image. The purpose of this work was to investigate different strategies to tackle the class imbalance problem in this tumor site. Materials and methods: A cohort of 230 oropharyngeal cancer patients treated between 2010 and 2018 was retrospectively collected. The following magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) sequences were available: T1-weighted, T2-weighted, 3D T1-weighted after gadolinium injection. Two strategies to tackle the class imbalance problem were studied: training with different loss functions (namely: Dice loss, Generalized Dice loss, Focal Tversky loss and Unified Focal loss) and implementing a two-stage approach (i.e. splitting the task in detection and segmentation). Segmentation performance was measured with Sørensen-Dice coefficient (Dice), 95th Hausdorff distance (HD) and Mean Surface Distance (MSD).Entities:
Keywords: Class imbalance, MRI; Convolutional neural network; Oropharyngeal cancer; Segmentation; Two-stage approach
Year: 2022 PMID: 36035088 PMCID: PMC9405079 DOI: 10.1016/j.phro.2022.08.005
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Phys Imaging Radiat Oncol ISSN: 2405-6316
Fig. 1Overview of the two-stage approach.
Fig. 2Segmentation performance of the 3D U-Net trained with different loss functions: Dice Loss (DL), Generalized Dice Loss (GDL), Tversky Loss (TVL) and Unified Focal Loss (UFL).
Detection and segmentation performance of the two stage approach and comparison to results of the previous work [10].
| Detection | Segmentation | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Avg. shift (mm) – [SD] | Dice | HD (mm) | MSD (mm) | |
| 3D end-to-end UNet | – | 0.54 | 10.6 | 2.4 |
| Two stage approach | 8.7 [8.2] | 0.64 | 8.7 | 2.1 |
| Semi-automatic approach (Obs. 1) | 3.0 [3.9] | 0.74 | 4.6 | 1.2 |
| Semi-automatic approach (Obs. 2) | 8.9 [6.9] | 0.67 | 7.2 | 1.7 |
Fig. 3Comparison of the oropharyngeal segmentations in three different patients (a, b, c) trained with the end-to-end 3D U-Net (red), with the two-stage approach (blue) and the manual delineation (green). The yellow boxes are drawn by detection network from the two-stage approach. All the images correspond to the 3D sequence.