Deep convolutional neural networks for automatic segmentation of thoracic organs‐at‐risk in radiation oncology – use of non‐domain transfer learning

Purpose Segmentation of organs‐at‐risk (OARs) is an essential component of the radiation oncology workflow. Commonly segmented thoracic OARs include the heart, esophagus, spinal cord, and lungs. This study evaluated a convolutional neural network (CNN) for automatic segmentation of these OARs. Metho...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Journal of applied clinical medical physics 2020-06, Vol.21 (6), p.108-113
Hauptverfasser: Vu, Charles C., Siddiqui, Zaid A., Zamdborg, Leonid, Thompson, Andrew B., Quinn, Thomas J., Castillo, Edward, Guerrero, Thomas M.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Purpose Segmentation of organs‐at‐risk (OARs) is an essential component of the radiation oncology workflow. Commonly segmented thoracic OARs include the heart, esophagus, spinal cord, and lungs. This study evaluated a convolutional neural network (CNN) for automatic segmentation of these OARs. Methods The dataset was created retrospectively from consecutive radiotherapy plans containing all five OARs of interest, including 22,411 CT slices from 168 patients. Patients were divided into training, validation, and test datasets according to a 66%/17%/17% split. We trained a modified U‐Net, applying transfer learning from a VGG16 image classification model trained on ImageNet. The Dice coefficient and 95% Hausdorff distance on the test set for each organ was compared to a commercial atlas‐based segmentation model using the Wilcoxon signed‐rank test. Results On the test dataset, the median Dice coefficients for the CNN model vs. the multi‐atlas model were 71% vs. 67% for the spinal cord, 96% vs. 94% for the right lung, 96%vs. 94% for the left lung, 91% vs. 85% for the heart, and 63% vs. 37% for the esophagus. The median 95% Hausdorff distances were 9.5  mm vs. 25.3 mm, 5.1  mm vs. 8.1 mm, 4.0  mm vs. 8.0 mm, 9.8  mm vs. 15.8 mm, and 9.2 mm vs. 20.0 mm for the respective organs. The results all favored the CNN model (P 
ISSN:1526-9914
1526-9914
DOI:10.1002/acm2.12871