Automated segmentation of reference tissue for prostate cancer localization in dynamic contrast enhanced MRI

For pharmacokinetic (PK) analysis of Dynamic Contrast Enhanced (DCE) MRI the arterial input function needs to be estimated. Previously, we demonstrated that PK parameters have a significant better discriminative performance when per patient reference tissue was used, but required manual annotation of reference tissue. In this study we propose a fully automated reference tissue segmentation method that tackles this limitation. The method was tested with our Computer Aided Diagnosis (CADx) system to study the effect on the discriminating performance for differentiating prostate cancer from benign areas in the peripheral zone (PZ). The proposed method automatically segments normal PZ tissue from DCE derived data. First, the bladder is segmented in the start-to-enhance map using the Otsu histogram threshold selection method. Second, the prostate is detected by applying a multi-scale Hessian filter to the relative enhancement map. Third, normal PZ tissue was segmented by threshold and morphological operators. The resulting segmentation was used as reference tissue to estimate the PK parameters. In 39 consecutive patients carcinoma, benign and normal tissue were annotated on MR images by a radiologist and a researcher using whole mount step-section histopathology as reference. PK parameters were computed for each ROI. Features were extracted from the set of ROIs using percentiles to train a support vector machine that was used as classifier. Prospective performance was estimated by means of leave-one-patient-out cross validation. A bootstrap resampling approach with 10,000 iterations was used for estimating the bootstrap mean AUCs and 95% confidence intervals. In total 42 malignant, 29 benign and 37 normal regions were annotated. For all patients, normal PZ was successfully segmented. The diagnostic accuracy obtained for differentiating malignant from benign lesions using a conventional general patient plasma profile showed an accuracy of 0.64 (0.53-0.74). Using the automated per-patient calibration method the diagnostic performance improved significantly to 0.76 (0.67-0.86, p=0.017) , whereas the manual per-patient calibration showed a diagnostic performance of 0.79 (0.70-0.89, p=0.01). In conclusion, the results show that an automated per-patient reference tissue PK model is feasible. A significantly better discriminating performance compared to the conventional general calibration was obtained and the diagnostic accuracy is similar to using manual per-patient calibration.

[1]  Thomas Hambrock,et al.  Computerized analysis of prostate lesions in the peripheral zone using dynamic contrast enhanced MRI. , 2008, Medical physics.

[2]  R E Lenkinski,et al.  Current role of MR imaging in the staging of adenocarcinoma of the prostate. , 1993, Radiology.

[3]  L R Schad,et al.  Pharmacokinetic parameters in CNS Gd-DTPA enhanced MR imaging. , 1991, Journal of computer assisted tomography.

[4]  D P Dearnaley,et al.  Dynamic contrast enhanced MRI of prostate cancer: correlation with morphology and tumour stage, histological grade and PSA. , 2000, Clinical radiology.

[5]  N. Otsu A threshold selection method from gray level histograms , 1979 .

[6]  Alejandro F. Frangi,et al.  Muliscale Vessel Enhancement Filtering , 1998, MICCAI.

[7]  H. Weinmann,et al.  Pharmacokinetics of GdDTPA/dimeglumine after intravenous injection into healthy volunteers. , 1984, Physiological chemistry and physics and medical NMR.

[8]  Peter L Choyke,et al.  Imaging prostate cancer: a multidisciplinary perspective. , 2007, Radiology.

[9]  C. Rutter,et al.  Bootstrap estimation of diagnostic accuracy with patient-clustered data. , 2000, Academic radiology.

[10]  H. Huisman,et al.  Prostate cancer localization with dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging and proton MR spectroscopic imaging. , 2006, Radiology.

[11]  Pieter C. Vos,et al.  Effect of calibration on computerized analysis of prostate lesions using quantitative dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging , 2007, SPIE Medical Imaging.

[12]  C. Kuhl,et al.  Dynamic breast MR imaging: are signal intensity time course data useful for differential diagnosis of enhancing lesions? , 1999, Radiology.

[13]  M. Knopp,et al.  Estimating kinetic parameters from dynamic contrast‐enhanced t1‐weighted MRI of a diffusable tracer: Standardized quantities and symbols , 1999, Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI.

[14]  A. Padhani MRI for assessing antivascular cancer treatments. , 2003, The British journal of radiology.

[15]  M Recht,et al.  Method for the quantitative assessment of contrast agent uptake in dynamic contrast‐enhanced MRI , 1994, Magnetic resonance in medicine.

[16]  G S Karczmar,et al.  A new method for imaging perfusion and contrast extraction fraction: Input functions derived from reference tissues , 1998, Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI.

[17]  Henkjan J Huisman,et al.  Discrimination of prostate cancer from normal peripheral zone and central gland tissue by using dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging. , 2003, Radiology.