Semi-supervised learning towards automated segmentation of PET images with limited annotations: application to lymphoma patients

Manual segmentation poses a time-consuming challenge for disease quantification, therapy evaluation, treatment planning, and outcome prediction. Convolutional neural networks (CNNs) hold promise in accurately identifying tumor locations and boundaries in PET scans. However, a major hurdle is the ext...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Australasian physical & engineering sciences in medicine 2024-09, Vol.47 (3), p.833-849
Hauptverfasser: Yousefirizi, Fereshteh, Shiri, Isaac, O, Joo Hyun, Bloise, Ingrid, Martineau, Patrick, Wilson, Don, Bénard, François, Sehn, Laurie H., Savage, Kerry J., Zaidi, Habib, Uribe, Carlos F., Rahmim, Arman
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Manual segmentation poses a time-consuming challenge for disease quantification, therapy evaluation, treatment planning, and outcome prediction. Convolutional neural networks (CNNs) hold promise in accurately identifying tumor locations and boundaries in PET scans. However, a major hurdle is the extensive amount of supervised and annotated data necessary for training. To overcome this limitation, this study explores semi-supervised approaches utilizing unlabeled data, specifically focusing on PET images of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) and primary mediastinal large B-cell lymphoma (PMBCL) obtained from two centers. We considered 2-[ 18 F]FDG PET images of 292 patients PMBCL (n = 104) and DLBCL (n = 188) (n = 232 for training and validation, and n = 60 for external testing). We harnessed classical wisdom embedded in traditional segmentation methods, such as the fuzzy clustering loss function (FCM), to tailor the training strategy for a 3D U-Net model, incorporating both supervised and unsupervised learning approaches. Various supervision levels were explored, including fully supervised methods with labeled FCM and unified focal/Dice loss, unsupervised methods with robust FCM (RFCM) and Mumford-Shah (MS) loss, and semi-supervised methods combining FCM with supervised Dice loss (MS + Dice) or labeled FCM (RFCM + FCM). The unified loss function yielded higher Dice scores (0.73 ± 0.11; 95% CI 0.67–0.8) than Dice loss (p value 
ISSN:2662-4729
0158-9938
2662-4737
2662-4737
1879-5447
DOI:10.1007/s13246-024-01408-x