Comparison of 11 automated PET segmentation methods in lymphoma

BackgroundSegmentation of lymphoma lesions in FDG PET/CT images is critical in both assessing individual lesions and quantifying patient disease burden. Simple thresholding methods remain common despite the large heterogeneity in lymphoma lesion location, size, and contrast. Here, we assess 11 automated PET segmentation methods for their use in two scenarios: individual lesion segmentation and patient-level disease quantification in lymphoma.MethodsLesions on18F-FDG PET/CT scans of 90 lymphoma patients were contoured by a nuclear medicine physician. Thresholding, active contours, clustering, adaptive region-growing, and convolutional neural network (CNN) methods were implemented on all physician-identified lesions. Lesion-level segmentation was evaluated using multiple segmentation performance metrics (Dice, Hausdorff Distance). Patient-level quantification of total disease burden (SUVtotal) and metabolic tumor volume (MTV) was assessed using Spearman's correlation coefficients between the segmentation output and physician contours. Lesion segmentation and patient quantification performance was compared to inter-physician agreement in a subset of 20 patients segmented by a second nuclear medicine physician.ResultsIn total, 1,223 lesions with median tumor-to-background ratio of 4.0 and volume of 1.8 cm3, were evaluated. When assessed for lesion segmentation, a 3D CNN, DeepMedic, achieved the highest performance across all evaluation metrics. DeepMedic, clustering methods, and an iterative threshold method had lesion-level segmentation performance comparable to the degree of inter-physician agreement. For patient-level SUVtotaland MTV quantification, all methods except 40% and 50% SUVmaxand adaptive region-growing achieved a performance that was similar the agreement of the two physicians.ConclusionsMultiple methods, including a 3D CNN, clustering, and an iterative threshold method, achieved both good lesion-level segmentation and patient-level quantification performance in a population of 90 lymphoma patients. These methods are thus recommended over thresholding methods such as 40% and 50% SUVmax, which were consistently found to be significantly outside the limits defined by inter-physician agreement.

[1]  Steve Y. Cho,et al.  Response‐adapted therapy for the treatment of children with newly diagnosed high risk Hodgkin lymphoma (AHOD0831): a report from the Children’s Oncology Group , 2019, British journal of haematology.

[2]  Pierre Vera,et al.  Baseline Total Metabolic Tumor Volume Measured with Fixed or Different Adaptive Thresholding Methods Equally Predicts Outcome in Peripheral T Cell Lymphoma , 2017, The Journal of Nuclear Medicine.

[3]  Wei Lu,et al.  Adaptive region-growing with maximum curvature strategy for tumor segmentation in 18F-FDG PET , 2017, Physics in medicine and biology.

[4]  Andreas Bockisch,et al.  Segmentation of PET volumes by iterative image thresholding. , 2007, Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine.

[5]  Christian Barillot,et al.  The first MICCAI challenge on PET tumor segmentation , 2018, Medical Image Anal..

[6]  Sim Heng Ong,et al.  Integrating spatial fuzzy clustering with level set methods for automated medical image segmentation , 2011, Comput. Biol. Medicine.

[7]  Tony F. Chan,et al.  Active contours without edges , 2001, IEEE Trans. Image Process..

[8]  M. Czuczman,et al.  In vivo treatment sensitivity testing with positron emission tomography/computed tomography after one cycle of chemotherapy for Hodgkin lymphoma. , 2014, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[9]  Bruce D Cheson,et al.  Recommendations for initial evaluation, staging, and response assessment of Hodgkin and non-Hodgkin lymphoma: the Lugano classification. , 2014, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[10]  Konstantinos Kamnitsas,et al.  Efficient multi‐scale 3D CNN with fully connected CRF for accurate brain lesion segmentation , 2016, Medical Image Anal..

[11]  Xiaoping Zhou,et al.  Prognostic value of total lesion glycolysis of baseline 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma , 2016, Oncotarget.

[12]  Dimitris Visvikis,et al.  Characterization of PET/CT images using texture analysis: the past, the present… any future? , 2016, European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging.

[13]  M. Czuczman,et al.  F-fl uorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography/computed tomography after one cycle of chemotherapy in patients with diff use large B-cell lymphoma: results of a Nordic/US intergroup study , 2015 .

[14]  S. Chauvie,et al.  PET-Derived Quantitative Metrics for Response and Prognosis in Lymphoma. , 2019, PET clinics.

[15]  R. Jeraj,et al.  Convolutional Neural Networks for Automated PET/CT Detection of Diseased Lymph Node Burden in Patients with Lymphoma. , 2020, Radiology. Artificial intelligence.

[16]  Thomas Brox,et al.  3D U-Net: Learning Dense Volumetric Segmentation from Sparse Annotation , 2016, MICCAI.

[17]  Thomas Brox,et al.  U-Net: Convolutional Networks for Biomedical Image Segmentation , 2015, MICCAI.

[18]  Habib Zaidi,et al.  Classification and evaluation strategies of auto‐segmentation approaches for PET: Report of AAPM task group No. 211 , 2017, Medical physics.

[19]  S. Barrington,et al.  When should FDG‐PET be used in the modern management of lymphoma? , 2014, British journal of haematology.

[20]  Dong Soo Lee,et al.  Total lesion glycolysis in positron emission tomography is a better predictor of outcome than the International Prognostic Index for patients with diffuse large B cell lymphoma , 2013, Cancer.

[21]  Yu Zhao,et al.  Automated Whole-Body Bone Lesion Detection for Multiple Myeloma on 68Ga-Pentixafor PET/CT Imaging Using Deep Learning Methods , 2018, Contrast media & molecular imaging.

[22]  Seyed-Ahmad Ahmadi,et al.  V-Net: Fully Convolutional Neural Networks for Volumetric Medical Image Segmentation , 2016, 2016 Fourth International Conference on 3D Vision (3DV).

[23]  R. Glynn,et al.  The Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test for Paired Comparisons of Clustered Data , 2006, Biometrics.

[24]  Sally F Barrington,et al.  Time to Prepare for Risk Adaptation in Lymphoma by Standardizing Measurement of Metabolic Tumor Burden , 2019, The Journal of Nuclear Medicine.

[25]  Wei Lu,et al.  Toward a standard for the evaluation of PET‐Auto‐Segmentation methods following the recommendations of AAPM task group No. 211: Requirements and implementation , 2017, Medical physics.

[26]  John O. Prior,et al.  Automatic lesion detection and segmentation of 18F-FET PET in gliomas: A full 3D U-Net convolutional neural network study , 2018, PloS one.

[27]  H. Tilly,et al.  Pretherapy metabolic tumour volume is an independent predictor of outcome in patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma , 2014, European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging.

[28]  Ronald M. Summers,et al.  A New 2.5D Representation for Lymph Node Detection Using Random Sets of Deep Convolutional Neural Network Observations , 2014, MICCAI.

[29]  Xiaodong Wu,et al.  3D fully convolutional networks for co-segmentation of tumors on PET-CT images , 2018, 2018 IEEE 15th International Symposium on Biomedical Imaging (ISBI 2018).

[30]  Su Ruan,et al.  Semi-automatic lymphoma detection and segmentation using fully conditional random fields , 2018, Comput. Medical Imaging Graph..

[31]  Sasa Mutic,et al.  Concurrent multimodality image segmentation by active contours for radiotherapy treatment planninga). , 2007, Medical physics.