Back

Revisiting prostate segmentation in magnetic resonance imaging (MRI): On model transferability, degradation and PI-RADS adherence

Fernandez-Quilez, A.; Nordstom, T.; Eftestol, T.; Alvestad, A. B.; Jaderling, F.; Kjosavik, S. R.; Eklund, M.

2023-08-23 radiology and imaging
10.1101/2023.08.21.23294376 medRxiv
Show abstract

PurposeTo investigate the effect of scanner and prostate MRI acquisition characteristics when compared to PI-RADSv2.1 technical standards in the performance of a deep learning prostate segmentation model trained with data from one center (INST1), longitudinally evaluated at the same institution and when transferred to other institutions. Materials and MethodsIn this retrospective study, a nn-UNet for prostate MRI segmentation was trained with data from 204 patients from one institution (INST1) (0.50mm2 in-plane, 3.6mm thickness and 16cm field of view [FOV]). Post-deployment performance at INST1 was tested with 30 patients acquired with a different protocol and in a different period of time (0.60mm2 in-plane, 4.0mm thickness and 19cm FOV). Transferability was tested on 248 patient sequences from five institutions (INST2, INST3, INST4, INST5 and INST6) acquired with different scanners and with heterogeneous degrees of PI-RADS v2.1 technical adherence. Performance was assessed using Dice Score Coefficient, Hausdorff Distance, Absolute Boundary Distance and Relative Volume Difference. ResultsThe model presented a significant degradation for the whole gland (WG) in the presence of a change of acquisition protocol at INST1 (DSC:99.46{+/-}0.12% and 91.24{+/-}3.32%,P<.001; RVD:-0.006{+/-}0.127% and 8.10{+/-}8.16%, P<.001). The model had a significantly higher performance in centers adhering to PI-RADS v2.1 when compared to those that did not (DSC: 86.24{+/-}9.67% and 74.83{+/-}15.45%, P <.001; RVD: -6.50{+/-}18.46% and 1.64{+/-}29.12%, P=.003). ConclusionsAdherence to PI-RADSv2.1 technical standards benefits inter-institutional transferability of a deep learning prostate segmentation model. Post-deployment evaluations are critical to ensure model performance is maintained over time in the presence of protocol acquisition modifications.

Matching journals

The top 3 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging
14 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
42.1%
2
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 15%
6.7%
3
Medical Physics
14 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
5.2%
50% of probability mass above
4
European Radiology
14 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
4.1%
5
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 36%
3.9%
6
Diagnostics
48 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
2.9%
7
Magnetic Resonance Imaging
21 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
2.9%
8
Human Brain Mapping
295 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.0%
9
Frontiers in Oncology
95 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.9%
10
Magnetic Resonance in Medicine
72 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.8%
11
Journal of Medical Imaging
11 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.6%
12
GigaScience
172 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.2%
13
Physics in Medicine & Biology
17 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.2%
14
Computer Methods and Programs in Biomedicine
27 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
1.0%
15
Frontiers in Neuroinformatics
38 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
0.9%
16
Radiotherapy and Oncology
18 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
0.9%
17
NeuroImage
813 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.9%
18
Brain Structure and Function
83 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
0.9%
19
Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience
53 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.9%
20
Biology Methods and Protocols
53 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.8%
21
NeuroImage: Clinical
132 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.8%
22
Analytical Biochemistry
26 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
0.8%
23
Archives of Clinical and Biomedical Research
28 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.8%
24
Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence
18 papers in training set
Top 1.0%
0.5%
25
International Journal of Radiation Oncology*Biology*Physics
21 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
0.5%
26
Ultrasound in Medicine & Biology
10 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
0.5%
27
NMR in Biomedicine
24 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
0.5%
28
Computers in Biology and Medicine
120 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.5%
29
Frontiers in Physiology
93 papers in training set
Top 7%
0.5%