nach oben

Erschienen in:

23.08.2018 | Original Article

Towards a universal MRI atlas of the prostate and prostate zones

Comparison of MRI vendor and image acquisition parameters

verfasst von: Kyle R. Padgett, Ph.D., Amy Swallen, B.S., Sara Pirozzi, B.S., Jon Piper, B.S., Felix M. Chinea, M.D., Matthew C. Abramowitz, M.D., Aaron Nelson, M.D., Alan Pollack, M.D., Ph.D., Radka Stoyanova, Ph.D.

Erschienen in: Strahlentherapie und Onkologie | Ausgabe 2/2019

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Background and purpose

The aim of this study was to evaluate an automatic multi-atlas-based segmentation method for generating prostate, peripheral (PZ), and transition zone (TZ) contours on MRIs with and without fat saturation (±FS), and compare MRIs from different vendor MRI systems.

Methods

T2-weighted (T2) and fat-saturated (T2FS) MRIs were acquired on 3T GE (GE, Waukesha, WI, USA) and Siemens (Erlangen, Germany) systems. Manual prostate and PZ contours were used to create atlas libraries. As a test MRI is entered, the procedure for atlas segmentation automatically identifies the atlas subjects that best match the test subject, followed by a normalized intensity-based free-form deformable registration. The contours are transformed to the test subject, and Dice similarity coefficients (DSC) and Hausdorff distances between atlas-generated and manual contours were used to assess performance.

Results

Three atlases were generated based on GE_T2 (n = 30), GE_T2FS (n = 30), and Siem_T2FS (n = 31). When test images matched the contrast and vendor of the atlas, DSCs of 0.81 and 0.83 for T2 ± FS were obtained (baseline performance). Atlases performed with higher accuracy when segmenting (i) T2FS vs. T2 images, likely due to a superior contrast between prostate vs. surrounding tissue; (ii) prostate vs. zonal anatomy; (iii) in the mid-gland vs. base and apex. Atlases performance declined when tested with images with differing contrast and MRI vendor. Conversely, combined atlases showed similar performance to baseline.

Conclusion

The MRI atlas-based segmentation method achieved good results for prostate, PZ, and TZ compared to expert contoured volumes. Combined atlases performed similarly to matching atlas and scan type. The technique is fast, fully automatic, and implemented on commercially available clinical platform.

Nur mit Berechtigung zugänglich

Barentsz JO, Richenberg J, Clements R et al (2012) ESUR prostate MR guidelines 2012. Eur Radiol 22:746–757CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Weinreb JC, Barentsz JO, Choyke PL et al (2016) PI-RADS prostate imaging—reporting and data system: 2015, version 2. Eur Urol 69:16–40CrossRefPubMed

Stoyanova R, Takhar M, Tschudi Y et al (2016) Prostate cancer radiomics and the promise of radiogenomics. Transl Cancer Res 5:432–447CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Rastinehad AR, Turkbey B, Salami SS et al (2014) Improving detection of clinically significant prostate cancer: magnetic resonance imaging/transrectal ultrasound fusion guided prostate biopsy. J Urol 191:1749–1754CrossRefPubMed

Wysock JS, Rosenkrantz AB, Huang WC et al (2014) A prospective, blinded comparison of magnetic resonance (MR) imaging-ultrasound fusion and visual estimation in the performance of MR-targeted prostate biopsy: the PROFUS trial. Eur Urol 66:343–351CrossRefPubMed

Haffner MC, Mosbruger T, Esopi DM et al (2013) Tracking the clonal origin of lethal prostate cancer. J Clin Invest 123:4918–4922CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Lips IM, van der Heide UA, Haustermans K et al (2011) Single blind randomized phase III trial to investigate the benefit of a focal lesion ablative microboost in prostate cancer (FLAME-trial): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial. Trials 12:255CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Bauman G, Haider M, Van der Heide UA, Menard C (2013) Boosting imaging defined dominant prostatic tumors: a systematic review. Radiother Oncol 107:274–281CrossRefPubMed

Hocht S, Aebersold DM, Albrecht C et al (2017) Hypofractionated radiotherapy for localized prostate cancer. Strahlenther Onkol 193:1–12CrossRefPubMed

10.

Pathmanathan AU, van As NJ, Kerkmeijer LGW et al (2018) Magnetic resonance imaging-guided adaptive radiation therapy: a “game changer” for prostate treatment? Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 100:361–373CrossRefPubMed

11.

Hild S, Graeff C, Rucinski A et al (2016) Scanned ion beam therapy for prostate carcinoma: comparison of single plan treatment and daily plan-adapted treatment. Strahlenther Onkol 192:118–126CrossRefPubMed

12.

Litjens G, Toth R, van de Ven W et al (2014) Evaluation of prostate segmentation algorithms for MRI: the PROMISE12 challenge. Med Image Anal 18:359–373CrossRefPubMed

13.

Ou YDJ, Erus G, Davatzikos C (2012) Multi_atlas segmentation of the prostate; a zooming process with robust registration and atlas selection. MICCAI grand challenge: prostate MR image segmentation 2012. https://promise12.grand-challenge.org/. Accessed: 1 Oct 2012

14.

Ou Y, Sotiras A, Paragios N, Davatzikos CDRAMMS (2011) Deformable registration via attribute matching and mutual-saliency weighting. Med Image Anal 15:622–639CrossRefPubMed

15.

Klein S, van der Heide UA, Lips IM, van Vulpen M, Staring M, Pluim JPW (2008) Automatic segmentation of the prostate in 3D MR images by atlas matching using localized mutual information. Med Phys 35:1407–1417CrossRefPubMed

16.

Hegde JV, Mulkern RV, Panych LP et al (2013) Multiparametric MRI of prostate cancer: an update on state-of-the-art techniques and their performance in detecting and localizing prostate cancer. J Magn Reson Imaging 37:1035–1054CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

17.

Bhavsar A, Verma S (2014) Anatomic imaging of the prostate. Biomed Res Int 2014:728539CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

18.

Xie Q, Ruan D (2014) Low-complexity atlas-based prostate segmentation by combining global, regional, and local metrics. Med Phys 41:41909CrossRefPubMed

19.

Cheng R, Turkbey B, Gandler W et al (2014) Atlas based AAM and SVM model for fully automatic MRI prostate segmentation. Conf Proc Ieee Eng Med Biol Soc 2014:2881–2885PubMed

20.

Korsager AS, Fortunati V, van der Lijn F et al (2015) The use of atlas registration and graph cuts for prostate segmentation in magnetic resonance images. Med Phys 42:1614–1624CrossRefPubMed

21.

Chilali O, Puech P, Lakroum S, Diaf M, Mordon S, Betrouni N (2016) Gland and zonal segmentation of prostate on T2W MR images. J Digit Imaging 29:730–736. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10278-016-9890-0 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

22.

Wu K, Garnier C, Alirezaie J, Dillenseger JL (2014) Adaptation and evaluation of the multiple organs OSD for T2 MRI prostate segmentation. Conf Proc Ieee Eng Med Biol Soc 2014:4687–4690PubMed

23.

Makni N, Iancu A, Colot O, Puech P, Mordon S, Betrouni N (2011) Zonal segmentation of prostate using multispectral magnetic resonance images. Med Phys 38:6093–6105CrossRefPubMed

24.

Litjens G, Debats O, van de Ven W, Karssemeijer N, Huisman H (2012) A pattern recognition approach to zonal segmentation of the prostate on MRI. Med Image Comput Comput Assist Interv 15:413–420PubMed

25.

Maan B, van der Heijden F, Futterer JJ (2012) A new prostate segmentation approach using multispectral Magnetic Resonance Imaging and a statistical pattern classifier. Proc SPIE Int Soc Opt Eng 8314. https://doi.org/10.1117/12.911194 CrossRef

26.

Chowdhury N, Toth R, Chappelow J et al (2012) Concurrent segmentation of the prostate on MRI and CT via linked statistical shape models for radiotherapy planning. Med Phys 39:2214–2228CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

27.

Toth R, Madabhushi A (2012) Multifeature landmark-free active appearance models: application to prostate MRI segmentation. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 31:1638–1650CrossRefPubMed

28.

Tian Z, Liu L, Fei B (2015) A fully automatic multi-atlas based segmentation method for prostate MR images. Proc Spie Int Soc Opt Eng 9413. https://doi.org/10.1117/12.2082229 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

29.

Rothke M, Blondin D, Schlemmer HP, Franiel T (2013) PI-RADS classification: structured reporting for MRI of the prostate. Fortschr Röntgenstr 185:253–261CrossRef

30.

Rosenkrantz AB, Taneja SS (2014) Radiologist, be aware: ten pitfalls that confound the interpretation of multiparametric prostate MRI. Ajr Am J Roentgenol 202:109–120CrossRefPubMed

31.

Dice LR (1945) Measures of the amount of ecologic association between species. Ecology 26:297–302CrossRef

32.

Hausdorff F (1914) Grundzüge der Mengenlehre. Veit, Leipzig

33.

Zou KH, Warfield SK, Bharatha A et al (2004) Statistical validation of image segmentation quality based on a spatial overlap index. Acad Radiol 11:178–189CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

34.

Huttenlocher DP, Klanderman GA, Rucklidge WJ (1993) Comparing images using the Hausdorff distance. Ieee T Pattern Anal 15:850–863CrossRef

35.

Piper J, Nelson A, Harper J (2013) Deformable image registration in MIM Maestro™. Evaluation and description. MIMsoftware, Ohio, p 5

36.

Johnson PB, Padgett KR, Chen KL, Dogan N (2016) Evaluation of the tool “Reg Refine” for user-guided deformable image registration. J Appl Clin Med Phys 17:158–170CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

37.

Warfield SK, Zou KH, Wells WM (2004) Simultaneous truth and performance level estimation (STAPLE): an algorithm for the validation of image segmentation. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 23:903–921CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

38.

Hoeks CMA, Barentsz JO, Hambrock T et al (2011) Prostate cancer: multiparametric MR imaging for detection, localization, and staging. Radiology 261:46–66CrossRefPubMed

39.

McGurk RJ, Bowsher J, Lee JA, Das SK (2013) Combining multiple FDG-PET radiotherapy target segmentation methods to reduce the effect of variable performance of individual segmentation methods. Med Phys 40:42501CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

40.

Rohlfing T, Brandt R, Menzel R, Maurer CR Jr. (2004) Evaluation of atlas selection strategies for atlas-based image segmentation with application to confocal microscopy images of bee brains. Neuroimage 21:1428–1442CrossRefPubMed

41.

Fiorino C, Reni M, Bolognesi A, Cattaneo GM, Calandrino R (1998) Intra- and inter-observer variability in contouring prostate and seminal vesicles: implications for conformal treatment planning. Radiother Oncol 47:285–292CrossRefPubMed

42.

Choi HJ, Kim YS, Lee SH et al (2011) Inter- and intra-observer variability in contouring of the prostate gland on planning computed tomography and cone beam computed tomography. Acta Oncol 50:539–546CrossRefPubMed

43.

Lutgendorf-Caucig C, Fotina I, Stock M, Potter R, Goldner G, Georg D (2011) Feasibility of CBCT-based target and normal structure delineation in prostate cancer radiotherapy: multi-observer and image multi-modality study. Radiother Oncol 98:154–161CrossRefPubMed

44.

Villeirs GM, Van Vaerenbergh K, Vakaet L et al (2005) Interobserver delineation variation using CT versus combined CT + MRI in intensity-modulated radiotherapy for prostate cancer. Strahlenther Onkol 181:424–430CrossRefPubMed

Titel: Towards a universal MRI atlas of the prostate and prostate zones
Comparison of MRI vendor and image acquisition parameters
verfasst von: Kyle R. Padgett, Ph.D.
Amy Swallen, B.S.
Sara Pirozzi, B.S.
Jon Piper, B.S.
Felix M. Chinea, M.D.
Matthew C. Abramowitz, M.D.
Aaron Nelson, M.D.
Alan Pollack, M.D., Ph.D.
Radka Stoyanova, Ph.D.
Publikationsdatum: 23.08.2018
Verlag: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Erschienen in: Strahlentherapie und Onkologie / Ausgabe 2/2019
Print ISSN: 0179-7158
Elektronische ISSN: 1439-099X
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00066-018-1348-5

Update Onkologie

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert.

Newsletter bestellen

Live-Webinar "Urologie und Sexualmedizin in der Praxis"

Springer Medizin

Towards a universal MRI atlas of the prostate and prostate zones

Comparison of MRI vendor and image acquisition parameters