Variability in accuracy of prostate cancer segmentation among radiologists, urologists, and scientists

被引:19
作者
Chen, Michael Y. [1 ,2 ,3 ,4 ]
Woodruff, Maria A. [1 ]
Dasgupta, Prokar [5 ]
Rukin, Nicholas J. [1 ,2 ,3 ,4 ]
机构
[1] Queensland Univ Technol, Sci & Engn Fac, Brisbane, Qld, Australia
[2] Metro North Hosp & Hlth Serv, Redcliffe Hosp, Herston, Qld, Australia
[3] Univ Queensland, Sch Med, Brisbane, Qld, Australia
[4] Metro North Hosp & Hlth Serv, Herston Biofabricat Inst, Brisbane, Qld, Australia
[5] Kings Coll London, Guys Hosp, London, England
来源
CANCER MEDICINE | 2020年 / 9卷 / 19期
关键词
3D printing; 3D model; MRI; prostate; segmentation; MODELS; UTILITY;
D O I
10.1002/cam4.3386
中图分类号
R73 [肿瘤学];
学科分类号
100214 ;
摘要
Background There is increasing research in using segmentation of prostate cancer to create a digital 3D model from magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans for purposes of education or surgical planning. However, the variation in segmentation of prostate cancer among users and potential inaccuracy has not been studied. Methods Four consultant radiologists, four consultant urologists, four urology trainees, and four nonclinician segmentation scientists were asked to segment a single slice of a lateral T3 prostate tumor on MRI ("Prostate 1"), an anterior zone prostate tumor MRI ("Prostate 2"), and a kidney tumor computed tomography (CT) scan ("Kidney"). Time taken and self-rated subjective accuracy out of a maximum score of 10 were recorded. Root mean square error, Dice coefficient, Matthews correlation coefficient, Jaccard index, specificity, and sensitivity were calculated using the radiologists as the ground truth. Results There was high variance among the radiologists in segmentation of Prostate 1 and 2 tumors with mean Dice coefficients of 0.81 and 0.58, respectively, compared to 0.96 for the kidney tumor. Urologists and urology trainees had similar accuracy, while nonclinicians had the lowest accuracy scores for Prostate 1 and 2 tumors (0.60 and 0.47) but similar for kidney tumor (0.95). Mean sensitivity in Prostate 1 (0.63) and Prostate 2 (0.61) was lower than specificity (0.92 and 0.93) suggesting under-segmentation of tumors in the non-radiologist groups. Participants spent less time on the kidney tumor segmentation and self-rated accuracy was higher than both prostate tumors. Conclusion Segmentation of prostate cancers is more difficult than other anatomy such as kidney tumors. Less experienced participants appear to under-segment models and underestimate the size of prostate tumors. Segmentation of prostate cancer is highly variable even among radiologists, and 3D modeling for clinical use must be performed with caution. Further work to develop a methodology to maximize segmentation accuracy is needed.
引用
收藏
页码:7172 / 7182
页数:11
相关论文
共 37 条
  • [1] A deep learning approach for real time prostate segmentation in freehand ultrasound guided biopsy
    Abu Anas, Emran Mohammad
    Mousavi, Parvin
    Abolmaesumi, Purang
    [J]. MEDICAL IMAGE ANALYSIS, 2018, 48 : 107 - 116
  • [2] Deep learning for segmentation of 49 selected bones in CT scans: First step in automated PET/CT-based 3D quantification of skeletal metastases
    Belal, Sarah Lindgren
    Sadik, May
    Kaboteh, Reza
    Enqvist, Olof
    Ulen, Johannes
    Poulsen, Mads H.
    Simonsen, Jane
    Hoilund-Carlsen, Poul F.
    Edenbrandt, Lars
    Tragardh, Elin
    [J]. EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF RADIOLOGY, 2019, 113 : 89 - 95
  • [3] Personalized 3D printed model of kidney and tumor anatomy: a useful tool for patient education
    Bernhard, Jean-Christophe
    Isotani, Shuji
    Matsugasumi, Toru
    Duddalwar, Vinay
    Hung, Andrew J.
    Suer, Evren
    Baco, Eduard
    Satkunasivam, Raj
    Djaladat, Hooman
    Metcalfe, Charles
    Hu, Brian
    Wong, Kelvin
    Park, Daniel
    Nguyen, Mike
    Hwang, Darryl
    Bazargani, Soroush T.
    Abreu, Andre Luis de Castro
    Aron, Monish
    Ukimura, Osamu
    Gill, Inderbir S.
    [J]. WORLD JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2016, 34 (03) : 337 - 345
  • [4] Impact of Three-dimensional Printing in Urology: State of the Art and Future Perspectives. A Systematic Review by ESUT-YAUWP Group
    Cacciamani, Giovanni E.
    Okhunov, Zhamshid
    Meneses, Aurus Dourado
    Rodriguez-Socarras, Moises Elias
    Gomez Rivas, Juan
    Porpiglia, Francesco
    Liatsikos, Evangelos
    Veneziano, Domenico
    [J]. EUROPEAN UROLOGY, 2019, 76 (02) : 209 - 221
  • [5] Three-dimensional printing in robot-assisted radical prostatectomy - an Idea, Development, Exploration, Assessment, Long-term follow-up (IDEAL) Phase 2a study
    Chandak, Pankaj
    Byrne, Nick
    Lynch, Hugo
    Allen, Clare
    Rottenberg, Giles
    Chandra, Ashish
    Raison, Nicholas
    Ahmed, Hashim
    Kasivisvanathan, Veeru
    Elhage, Oussama
    Dasgupta, Prokar
    [J]. BJU INTERNATIONAL, 2018, 122 (03) : 360 - 361
  • [6] Artificial intelligence and neural networks in urology: current clinical applications
    Checcucci, Enrico
    Autorino, Riccardo
    Cacciamani, Giovanni E.
    Amparore, Daniele
    De Cillis, Sabrina
    Piana, Alberto
    Piazzolla, Pietro
    Vezzetti, Enrico
    Fiori, Cristian
    Veneziano, Domenico
    Tewari, Ash
    Dasgupta, Prokar
    Hung, Andrew
    Gill, Inderbir
    Porpiglia, Francesco
    [J]. MINERVA UROLOGICA E NEFROLOGICA, 2020, 72 (01) : 49 - 57
  • [7] Multi-colour extrusion fused deposition modelling: a low-cost 3D printing method for anatomical prostate cancer models
    Chen, Michael Y.
    Skewes, Jacob
    Woodruff, Maria A.
    Dasgupta, Prokar
    Rukin, Nicholas J.
    [J]. SCIENTIFIC REPORTS, 2020, 10 (01)
  • [8] Current applications of three-dimensional printing in urology
    Chen, Michael Y.
    Skewes, Jacob
    Desselle, Mathilde
    Wong, Cynthia
    Woodruff, Maria A.
    Dasgupta, Prokar
    Rukin, Nicholas J.
    [J]. BJU INTERNATIONAL, 2020, 125 (01) : 17 - 27
  • [9] Chiu TD, 2019, BRACHYTHERAPY, V18, pS71, DOI DOI 10.1016/J.BRACHY.2019.04.148
  • [10] A Comparison of Radiologic Tumor Volume and Pathologic Tumor Volume in Renal Cell Carcinoma (RCC)
    Choi, See Min
    Choi, Don Kyoung
    Kim, Tae Heon
    Jeong, Byong Chang
    Seo, Seong Il
    Jeon, Seong Soo
    Lee, Hyun Moo
    Choi, Han-Yong
    Jeon, Hwang Gyun
    [J]. PLOS ONE, 2015, 10 (03):