A study of positioning orientation effect on segmentation accuracy using convolutional neural networks for rectal cancer. Issue 1 (12th November 2018)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Men, Kuo; Boimel, Pamela; Janopaul‐Naylor, James; Cheng, Chingyun; Zhong, Haoyu; Huang, Mi; Geng, Huaizhi; Fan, Yong; Plastaras, John P.; Ben‐Josef, Edgar; Xiao, Ying
• Is Part Of: Journal of applied clinical medical physics. Volume 20:Issue 1(2019)
• Page Start: 110
• Page End: 117
• Publication Date: 2018-11-12
• Subjects: convolutional neural networks -- deep learning -- positioning orientation -- rectal cancer radiotherapy -- segmentation; Medical physics -- Periodicals; Clinical medicine -- Periodicals; Health Physics; Clinical Medicine; Electronic journals; Periodicals; Periodicals; Fulltext; Internet Resources; 610.153
• DOI: 10.1002/acm2.12494
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1526-9914

Abstract

Abstract: Purpose: Convolutional neural networks (CNN) have greatly improved medical image segmentation. A robust model requires training data can represent the entire dataset. One of the differing characteristics comes from variability in patient positioning (prone or supine) for radiotherapy. In this study, we investigated the effect of position orientation on segmentation using CNN. Methods: Data of 100 patients (50 in supine and 50 in prone) with rectal cancer were collected for this study. We designed three sets of experiments for comparison: (a) segmentation using the model trained with data from the same orientation; (b) segmentation using the model trained with data from the opposite orientation; (c) segmentation using the model trained with data from both orientations. We performed fivefold cross‐validation. The performance was evaluated on segmentation of the clinical target volume (CTV), bladder, and femurs with Dice similarity coefficient (DSC) and Hausdorff distance (HD). Results: Compared with models trained on cases positioned in the same orientation, the models trained with cases positioned in the opposite orientation performed significantly worse ( P < 0.05) on CTV and bladder segmentation, but had comparable accuracy for femurs ( P > 0.05). The average DSC values were 0.74 vs 0.84, 0.85 vs 0.88, and 0.91 vs 0.91 for CTV, bladder, and femurs, respectively. The corresponding HD values (mm) were 16.6 vs 14.6, 8.4 vs 8.1, and 6.3 vs 6.3, respectively. The models trained with data from both orientations have comparable accuracy ( P > 0.05), with average DSC of 0.84, 0.88, and 0.91 and HD of 14.4, 8.1, and 6.3, respectively. Conclusions: Orientation affects the accuracy for CTV and bladder, but has negligible effect on the femurs. The model trained from data combining both orientations performs as well as a model trained with data from the same orientation for all the organs. These observations can offer guidance on the choice of training data for accurate segmentation.