Background based Gaussian mixture model lesion segmentation in PET

Deep learning-based automated quantification of the hepatorenal index for evaluation of fatty liver by ultrasonography

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to develop and validate a fully-automatic quantification of the hepatorenal index (HRI) calculated by a deep convolutional neural network (DCNN) comparable to the interpretations of radiologists experienced in ultrasound (US) imaging.

METHODS

In this retrospective analysis, DCNN-based organ segmentation with Gaussian mixture modeling for automated quantification of the HRI was developed using abdominal US images from a previous study. For validation, 294 patients who underwent abdominal US examination before living-donor liver transplantation were selected. Interobserver agreement for the measured brightness of the liver and kidney and the calculated HRI were analyzed between two board-certified radiologists and DCNN using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs).

RESULTS

Most patients had normal (n=95) or mild (n=198) fatty liver. The ICCs of hepatic and renal brightness measurements and the calculated HRI between the two radiologists were 0.892 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.866 to 0.913), 0.898 (95% CI, 0.873 to 0.918), and 0.681 (95% CI, 0.615 to 0.738) for the first session and 0.920 (95% CI, 0.901 to 0.936), 0.874 (95% CI, 0.844 to 0.898), and 0.579 (95% CI, 0.497 to 0.650) for the second session, respectively; the results ranged from moderate to excellent agreement. Using the same task, the ICCs of the hepatic and renal measurements and the calculated HRI between the average values of the two radiologists and DCNN were 0.919 (95% CI, 0.899 to 0.935), 0.916 (95% CI, 0.895 to 0.932), and 0.734 (95% CI, 0.676 to 0.782), respectively, showing high to excellent agreement.

CONCLUSION

Automated quantification of HRI using DCNN can yield HRI measurements similar to those obtained by experienced radiologists in patients with normal or mild fatty liver.

Toward a standard for the evaluation of PET-Auto-Segmentation methods following the recommendations of AAPM task group No. 211: Requirements and implementation

Purpose

The aim of this paper is to define the requirements and describe the design and implementation of a standard benchmark tool for evaluation and validation of PET‐auto‐segmentation (PET‐AS) algorithms. This work follows the recommendations of Task Group 211 (TG211) appointed by the American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM).

Methods

The recommendations published in the AAPM TG211 report were used to derive a set of required features and to guide the design and structure of a benchmarking software tool. These items included the selection of appropriate representative data and reference contours obtained from established approaches and the description of available metrics. The benchmark was designed in a way that it could be extendable by inclusion of bespoke segmentation methods, while maintaining its main purpose of being a standard testing platform for newly developed PET‐AS methods. An example of implementation of the proposed framework, named PETASset, was built. In this work, a selection of PET‐AS methods representing common approaches to PET image segmentation was evaluated within PETASset for the purpose of testing and demonstrating the capabilities of the software as a benchmark platform.

Results

A selection of clinical, physical, and simulated phantom data, including “best estimates” reference contours from macroscopic specimens, simulation template, and CT scans was built into the PETASset application database. Specific metrics such as Dice Similarity Coefficient (DSC), Positive Predictive Value (PPV), and Sensitivity (S), were included to allow the user to compare the results of any given PET‐AS algorithm to the reference contours. In addition, a tool to generate structured reports on the evaluation of the performance of PET‐AS algorithms against the reference contours was built. The variation of the metric agreement values with the reference contours across the PET‐AS methods evaluated for demonstration were between 0.51 and 0.83, 0.44 and 0.86, and 0.61 and 1.00 for DSC, PPV, and the S metric, respectively. Examples of agreement limits were provided to show how the software could be used to evaluate a new algorithm against the existing state‐of‐the art.

Conclusions

PETASset provides a platform that allows standardizing the evaluation and comparison of different PET‐AS methods on a wide range of PET datasets. The developed platform will be available to users willing to evaluate their PET‐AS methods and contribute with more evaluation datasets.