Cardiac substructure segmentation with deep learning for improved cardiac sparing

Purpose Radiation dose to cardiac substructures is related to radiation‐induced heart disease. However, substructures are not considered in radiation therapy planning (RTP) due to poor visualization on CT. Therefore, we developed a novel deep learning (DL) pipeline leveraging MRI’s soft tissue contr...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Medical physics (Lancaster) 2020-02, Vol.47 (2), p.576-586
Hauptverfasser: Morris, Eric D., Ghanem, Ahmed I., Dong, Ming, Pantelic, Milan V., Walker, Eleanor M., Glide‐Hurst, Carri K.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Purpose Radiation dose to cardiac substructures is related to radiation‐induced heart disease. However, substructures are not considered in radiation therapy planning (RTP) due to poor visualization on CT. Therefore, we developed a novel deep learning (DL) pipeline leveraging MRI’s soft tissue contrast coupled with CT for state‐of‐the‐art cardiac substructure segmentation requiring a single, non‐contrast CT input. Materials/methods Thirty‐two left‐sided whole‐breast cancer patients underwent cardiac T2 MRI and CT‐simulation. A rigid cardiac‐confined MR/CT registration enabled ground truth delineations of 12 substructures (chambers, great vessels (GVs), coronary arteries (CAs), etc.). Paired MRI/CT data (25 patients) were placed into separate image channels to train a three‐dimensional (3D) neural network using the entire 3D image. Deep supervision and a Dice‐weighted multi‐class loss function were applied. Results were assessed pre/post augmentation and post‐processing (3D conditional random field (CRF)). Results for 11 test CTs (seven unique patients) were compared to ground truth and a multi‐atlas method (MA) via Dice similarity coefficient (DSC), mean distance to agreement (MDA), and Wilcoxon signed‐ranks tests. Three physicians evaluated clinical acceptance via consensus scoring (5‐point scale). Results The model stabilized in ~19 h (200 epochs, training error
ISSN:0094-2405
2473-4209
DOI:10.1002/mp.13940