Semi-automated 18F-FDG PET segmentation methods for tumor volume determination in Non-Hodgkin lymphoma patients: a literature review, implementation and multi-threshold evaluation

In the treatment of Non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL), multiple therapeutic options are available. Improving outcome predictions are essential to optimize treatment. The metabolic active tumor volume (MATV) has shown to be a prognostic factor in NHL. It is usually retrieved using semi-automated thresholding methods based on standardized uptake values (SUV), calculated from ¹⁸F-Fluorodeoxyglucose Positron Emission Tomography (¹⁸F-FDG PET) images. However, there is currently no consensus method for NHL. The aim of this study was to review literature on different segmentation methods used, and to evaluate selected methods by using an in house created software tool. A software tool, MUltiple SUV Threshold (MUST)-segmenter was developed where tumor locations are identified by placing seed-points on the PET images, followed by subsequent region growing. Based on a literature review, 9 SUV thresholding methods were selected and MATVs were extracted. The MUST-segmenter was utilized in a cohort of 68 patients with NHL. Differences in MATVs were assessed with paired t-tests, and correlations and distributions figures. High variability and significant differences between the MATVs based on different segmentation methods (p < 0.05) were observed in the NHL patients. Median MATVs ranged from 35 to 211 cc. No consensus for determining MATV is available based on the literature. Using the MUST-segmenter with 9 selected SUV thresholding methods, we demonstrated a large and significant variation in MATVs. Identifying the most optimal segmentation method for patients with NHL is essential to further improve predictions of toxicity, response, and treatment outcomes, which can be facilitated by the MUST-segmenter.

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.

Classification and evaluation strategies of auto-segmentation approaches for PET: Report of AAPM task group No. 211

PURPOSE

The purpose of this educational report is to provide an overview of the present state-of-the-art PET auto-segmentation (PET-AS) algorithms and their respective validation, with an emphasis on providing the user with help in understanding the challenges and pitfalls associated with selecting and implementing a PET-AS algorithm for a particular application.

APPROACH

A brief description of the different types of PET-AS algorithms is provided using a classification based on method complexity and type. The advantages and the limitations of the current PET-AS algorithms are highlighted based on current publications and existing comparison studies. A review of the available image datasets and contour evaluation metrics in terms of their applicability for establishing a standardized evaluation of PET-AS algorithms is provided. The performance requirements for the algorithms and their dependence on the application, the radiotracer used and the evaluation criteria are described and discussed. Finally, a procedure for algorithm acceptance and implementation, as well as the complementary role of manual and auto-segmentation are addressed.

FINDINGS

A large number of PET-AS algorithms have been developed within the last 20 years. Many of the proposed algorithms are based on either fixed or adaptively selected thresholds. More recently, numerous papers have proposed the use of more advanced image analysis paradigms to perform semi-automated delineation of the PET images. However, the level of algorithm validation is variable and for most published algorithms is either insufficient or inconsistent which prevents recommending a single algorithm. This is compounded by the fact that realistic image configurations with low signal-to-noise ratios (SNR) and heterogeneous tracer distributions have rarely been used. Large variations in the evaluation methods used in the literature point to the need for a standardized evaluation protocol.

CONCLUSIONS

Available comparison studies suggest that PET-AS algorithms relying on advanced image analysis paradigms provide generally more accurate segmentation than approaches based on PET activity thresholds, particularly for realistic configurations. However, this may not be the case for simple shape lesions in situations with a narrower range of parameters, where simpler methods may also perform well. Recent algorithms which employ some type of consensus or automatic selection between several PET-AS methods have potential to overcome the limitations of the individual methods when appropriately trained. In either case, accuracy evaluation is required for each different PET scanner and scanning and image reconstruction protocol. For the simpler, less robust approaches, adaptation to scanning conditions, tumor type, and tumor location by optimization of parameters is necessary. The results from the method evaluation stage can be used to estimate the contouring uncertainty. All PET-AS contours should be critically verified by a physician. A standard test, i.e., a benchmark dedicated to evaluating both existing and future PET-AS algorithms needs to be designed, to aid clinicians in evaluating and selecting PET-AS algorithms and to establish performance limits for their acceptance for clinical use. The initial steps toward designing and building such a standard are undertaken by the task group members.

Joint segmentation of anatomical and functional images: applications in quantification of lesions from PET, PET-CT, MRI-PET, and MRI-PET-CT images

We present a novel method for the joint segmentation of anatomical and functional images. Our proposed methodology unifies the domains of anatomical and functional images, represents them in a product lattice, and performs simultaneous delineation of regions based on random walk image segmentation. Furthermore, we also propose a simple yet effective object/background seed localization method to make the proposed segmentation process fully automatic. Our study uses PET, PET-CT, MRI-PET, and fused MRI-PET-CT scans (77 studies in all) from 56 patients who had various lesions in different body regions. We validated the effectiveness of the proposed method on different PET phantoms as well as on clinical images with respect to the ground truth segmentation provided by clinicians. Experimental results indicate that the presented method is superior to threshold and Bayesian methods commonly used in PET image segmentation, is more accurate and robust compared to the other PET-CT segmentation methods recently published in the literature, and also it is general in the sense of simultaneously segmenting multiple scans in real-time with high accuracy needed in routine clinical use.