Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Towards a universal MRI atlas of the prostate and prostate zones

Comparison of MRI vendor and image acquisition parameters

Hin zu einem universellen MRT-Atlas von Prostata und Prostatazonen

Vergleich von verschiedenen MRT-Herstellern und Bildaufnahmeparametern

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Strahlentherapie und Onkologie Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background and purpose

The aim of this study was to evaluate an automatic multi-atlas-based segmentation method for generating prostate, peripheral (PZ), and transition zone (TZ) contours on MRIs with and without fat saturation (±FS), and compare MRIs from different vendor MRI systems.

Methods

T2-weighted (T2) and fat-saturated (T2FS) MRIs were acquired on 3T GE (GE, Waukesha, WI, USA) and Siemens (Erlangen, Germany) systems. Manual prostate and PZ contours were used to create atlas libraries. As a test MRI is entered, the procedure for atlas segmentation automatically identifies the atlas subjects that best match the test subject, followed by a normalized intensity-based free-form deformable registration. The contours are transformed to the test subject, and Dice similarity coefficients (DSC) and Hausdorff distances between atlas-generated and manual contours were used to assess performance.

Results

Three atlases were generated based on GE_T2 (n = 30), GE_T2FS (n = 30), and Siem_T2FS (n = 31). When test images matched the contrast and vendor of the atlas, DSCs of 0.81 and 0.83 for T2 ± FS were obtained (baseline performance). Atlases performed with higher accuracy when segmenting (i) T2FS vs. T2 images, likely due to a superior contrast between prostate vs. surrounding tissue; (ii) prostate vs. zonal anatomy; (iii) in the mid-gland vs. base and apex. Atlases performance declined when tested with images with differing contrast and MRI vendor. Conversely, combined atlases showed similar performance to baseline.

Conclusion

The MRI atlas-based segmentation method achieved good results for prostate, PZ, and TZ compared to expert contoured volumes. Combined atlases performed similarly to matching atlas and scan type. The technique is fast, fully automatic, and implemented on commercially available clinical platform.

Zusammenfassung

Hintergrund und Zweck

Ziel der Studie war es, eine automatische multi-atlasbasierende Segmentierungsmethode zur Erzeugung von Prostata-, peripheren und Übergangszonenkonturen (PZ/TZ) auf Magnetresonanztomographie(MRT)-Bildern mit und ohne Fettsättigung (±FS) zu beurteilen und MRT-Systeme verschiedener Hersteller zu vergleichen.

Methoden

T2-gewichtete (T2) und fettgesättigte (T2FS) MRTs wurden auf 3T-Systemen von GE (GE, Waukesha, WI, USA) und Siemens (Erlangen, Deutschland) aufgenommen. Manuelle Prostata- und PZ-Konturen wurden verwendet, um Atlasbibliotheken zu erstellen. Nach dem Einlesen eines MRT-Testdatensatzes identifiziert das Verfahren zur Atlassegmentierung automatisch die Atlasobjekte, die am besten zum Testobjekt passen, gefolgt von einer normalisierten, intensitätsbasierenden, frei deformierbaren Registrierung. Die Konturen werden dem Testobjekt angepasst und die „Dice Similarity Coefficients“ (DSC) und der Hausdorff-Abstand zwischen atlasgenerierten und manuellen Konturen verwendet, um die Übereinstimmung zu beurteilen.

Ergebnisse

Drei Atlanten wurden basierend auf GE_T2 (n = 30), GE_T2FS (n = 30) und Siem_T2FS (n = 31) erstellt. Wenn die Testbilder mit dem gewählten Kontrast und Atlashersteller übereinstimmten, wurden DSC von 0,81 und 0,83 für T2 ± FS erzielt (Ausgangswert). Atlanten erreichten eine höhere Genauigkeit beim Segmentieren von: (i) T2FS-Bildern verglichen mit T2-Bildern, wahrscheinlich aufgrund des besseren Kontrasts zwischen Prostata und umgebendem Gewebe auf T2FS-Bildern; (ii) Prostata verglichen mit zonaler Anatomie; (iii) der Drüsenmitte verglichen mit Basis und Apex. Die Qualität der Atlanten ging zurück, wenn sie mit Bildern mit unterschiedlichem Kontrast und MRT-Gerät getestet wurden. Umgekehrt zeigten kombinierte Atlanten eine ähnliche Übereinstimmung und Qualität wie der Ausgangswert.

Schlussfolgerung

Die atlasbasierende MRT-Segmentierungsmethode erzielte gute Ergebnisse für Prostata, PZ und TZ im Vergleich zu konturierten Volumina. Kombinierte Atlanten erreichten eine ähnliche Übereinstimmung und Genauigkeit wie passender Atlas- und Scan-Typ. Die Technik ist schnell, vollautomatisch und auf einer kommerziell erhältlichen klinischen Plattform integriert.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Barentsz JO, Richenberg J, Clements R et al (2012) ESUR prostate MR guidelines 2012. Eur Radiol 22:746–757

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Weinreb JC, Barentsz JO, Choyke PL et al (2016) PI-RADS prostate imaging—reporting and data system: 2015, version 2. Eur Urol 69:16–40

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Stoyanova R, Takhar M, Tschudi Y et al (2016) Prostate cancer radiomics and the promise of radiogenomics. Transl Cancer Res 5:432–447

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Rastinehad AR, Turkbey B, Salami SS et al (2014) Improving detection of clinically significant prostate cancer: magnetic resonance imaging/transrectal ultrasound fusion guided prostate biopsy. J Urol 191:1749–1754

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Wysock JS, Rosenkrantz AB, Huang WC et al (2014) A prospective, blinded comparison of magnetic resonance (MR) imaging-ultrasound fusion and visual estimation in the performance of MR-targeted prostate biopsy: the PROFUS trial. Eur Urol 66:343–351

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Haffner MC, Mosbruger T, Esopi DM et al (2013) Tracking the clonal origin of lethal prostate cancer. J Clin Invest 123:4918–4922

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Lips IM, van der Heide UA, Haustermans K et al (2011) Single blind randomized phase III trial to investigate the benefit of a focal lesion ablative microboost in prostate cancer (FLAME-trial): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial. Trials 12:255

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Bauman G, Haider M, Van der Heide UA, Menard C (2013) Boosting imaging defined dominant prostatic tumors: a systematic review. Radiother Oncol 107:274–281

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Hocht S, Aebersold DM, Albrecht C et al (2017) Hypofractionated radiotherapy for localized prostate cancer. Strahlenther Onkol 193:1–12

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Pathmanathan AU, van As NJ, Kerkmeijer LGW et al (2018) Magnetic resonance imaging-guided adaptive radiation therapy: a “game changer” for prostate treatment? Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 100:361–373

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Hild S, Graeff C, Rucinski A et al (2016) Scanned ion beam therapy for prostate carcinoma: comparison of single plan treatment and daily plan-adapted treatment. Strahlenther Onkol 192:118–126

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Litjens G, Toth R, van de Ven W et al (2014) Evaluation of prostate segmentation algorithms for MRI: the PROMISE12 challenge. Med Image Anal 18:359–373

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Ou YDJ, Erus G, Davatzikos C (2012) Multi_atlas segmentation of the prostate; a zooming process with robust registration and atlas selection. MICCAI grand challenge: prostate MR image segmentation 2012. https://promise12.grand-challenge.org/. Accessed: 1 Oct 2012

    Google Scholar 

  14. Ou Y, Sotiras A, Paragios N, Davatzikos CDRAMMS (2011) Deformable registration via attribute matching and mutual-saliency weighting. Med Image Anal 15:622–639

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Klein S, van der Heide UA, Lips IM, van Vulpen M, Staring M, Pluim JPW (2008) Automatic segmentation of the prostate in 3D MR images by atlas matching using localized mutual information. Med Phys 35:1407–1417

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Hegde JV, Mulkern RV, Panych LP et al (2013) Multiparametric MRI of prostate cancer: an update on state-of-the-art techniques and their performance in detecting and localizing prostate cancer. J Magn Reson Imaging 37:1035–1054

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Bhavsar A, Verma S (2014) Anatomic imaging of the prostate. Biomed Res Int 2014:728539

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Xie Q, Ruan D (2014) Low-complexity atlas-based prostate segmentation by combining global, regional, and local metrics. Med Phys 41:41909

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Cheng R, Turkbey B, Gandler W et al (2014) Atlas based AAM and SVM model for fully automatic MRI prostate segmentation. Conf Proc Ieee Eng Med Biol Soc 2014:2881–2885

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Korsager AS, Fortunati V, van der Lijn F et al (2015) The use of atlas registration and graph cuts for prostate segmentation in magnetic resonance images. Med Phys 42:1614–1624

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Chilali O, Puech P, Lakroum S, Diaf M, Mordon S, Betrouni N (2016) Gland and zonal segmentation of prostate on T2W MR images. J Digit Imaging 29:730–736. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10278-016-9890-0

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Wu K, Garnier C, Alirezaie J, Dillenseger JL (2014) Adaptation and evaluation of the multiple organs OSD for T2 MRI prostate segmentation. Conf Proc Ieee Eng Med Biol Soc 2014:4687–4690

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Makni N, Iancu A, Colot O, Puech P, Mordon S, Betrouni N (2011) Zonal segmentation of prostate using multispectral magnetic resonance images. Med Phys 38:6093–6105

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Litjens G, Debats O, van de Ven W, Karssemeijer N, Huisman H (2012) A pattern recognition approach to zonal segmentation of the prostate on MRI. Med Image Comput Comput Assist Interv 15:413–420

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Maan B, van der Heijden F, Futterer JJ (2012) A new prostate segmentation approach using multispectral Magnetic Resonance Imaging and a statistical pattern classifier. Proc SPIE Int Soc Opt Eng 8314. https://doi.org/10.1117/12.911194

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Chowdhury N, Toth R, Chappelow J et al (2012) Concurrent segmentation of the prostate on MRI and CT via linked statistical shape models for radiotherapy planning. Med Phys 39:2214–2228

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Toth R, Madabhushi A (2012) Multifeature landmark-free active appearance models: application to prostate MRI segmentation. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 31:1638–1650

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Tian Z, Liu L, Fei B (2015) A fully automatic multi-atlas based segmentation method for prostate MR images. Proc Spie Int Soc Opt Eng 9413. https://doi.org/10.1117/12.2082229

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. Rothke M, Blondin D, Schlemmer HP, Franiel T (2013) PI-RADS classification: structured reporting for MRI of the prostate. Fortschr Röntgenstr 185:253–261

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Rosenkrantz AB, Taneja SS (2014) Radiologist, be aware: ten pitfalls that confound the interpretation of multiparametric prostate MRI. Ajr Am J Roentgenol 202:109–120

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Dice LR (1945) Measures of the amount of ecologic association between species. Ecology 26:297–302

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Hausdorff F (1914) Grundzüge der Mengenlehre. Veit, Leipzig

    Google Scholar 

  33. Zou KH, Warfield SK, Bharatha A et al (2004) Statistical validation of image segmentation quality based on a spatial overlap index. Acad Radiol 11:178–189

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. Huttenlocher DP, Klanderman GA, Rucklidge WJ (1993) Comparing images using the Hausdorff distance. Ieee T Pattern Anal 15:850–863

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Piper J, Nelson A, Harper J (2013) Deformable image registration in MIM Maestro™. Evaluation and description. MIMsoftware, Ohio, p 5

    Google Scholar 

  36. Johnson PB, Padgett KR, Chen KL, Dogan N (2016) Evaluation of the tool “Reg Refine” for user-guided deformable image registration. J Appl Clin Med Phys 17:158–170

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  37. Warfield SK, Zou KH, Wells WM (2004) Simultaneous truth and performance level estimation (STAPLE): an algorithm for the validation of image segmentation. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 23:903–921

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  38. Hoeks CMA, Barentsz JO, Hambrock T et al (2011) Prostate cancer: multiparametric MR imaging for detection, localization, and staging. Radiology 261:46–66

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. McGurk RJ, Bowsher J, Lee JA, Das SK (2013) Combining multiple FDG-PET radiotherapy target segmentation methods to reduce the effect of variable performance of individual segmentation methods. Med Phys 40:42501

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  40. Rohlfing T, Brandt R, Menzel R, Maurer CR Jr. (2004) Evaluation of atlas selection strategies for atlas-based image segmentation with application to confocal microscopy images of bee brains. Neuroimage 21:1428–1442

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Fiorino C, Reni M, Bolognesi A, Cattaneo GM, Calandrino R (1998) Intra- and inter-observer variability in contouring prostate and seminal vesicles: implications for conformal treatment planning. Radiother Oncol 47:285–292

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Choi HJ, Kim YS, Lee SH et al (2011) Inter- and intra-observer variability in contouring of the prostate gland on planning computed tomography and cone beam computed tomography. Acta Oncol 50:539–546

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Lutgendorf-Caucig C, Fotina I, Stock M, Potter R, Goldner G, Georg D (2011) Feasibility of CBCT-based target and normal structure delineation in prostate cancer radiotherapy: multi-observer and image multi-modality study. Radiother Oncol 98:154–161

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Villeirs GM, Van Vaerenbergh K, Vakaet L et al (2005) Interobserver delineation variation using CT versus combined CT + MRI in intensity-modulated radiotherapy for prostate cancer. Strahlenther Onkol 181:424–430

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by National Cancer Institute (R01CA189295 and R01CA190105 to A.P.). We would also like to thank Randi Steinhagen and Dr. rer. nat. Dipl.-Phys. Ellen Ackerstaff for translating our abstract into German.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiation Oncology, Miller School of Medicine University of Miami, 1475 NW 12th Avenue, Suite 1515J, 33136, Miami, FL, USA

    Radka Stoyanova Ph.D.

  2. Department of Radiology, Miller School of Medicine University of Miami, Miami, FL, USA

    Kyle R. Padgett Ph.D., Felix M. Chinea M.D., Matthew C. Abramowitz M.D. & Alan Pollack M.D., Ph.D.

  3. Research and Development, MIM software Inc., Cleveland, OH, USA

    Amy Swallen B.S., Sara Pirozzi B.S., Jon Piper B.S. & Aaron Nelson M.D.

Authors
  1. Kyle R. Padgett Ph.D.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Amy Swallen B.S.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Sara Pirozzi B.S.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Jon Piper B.S.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Felix M. Chinea M.D.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Matthew C. Abramowitz M.D.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Aaron Nelson M.D.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Alan Pollack M.D., Ph.D.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Radka Stoyanova Ph.D.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Radka Stoyanova Ph.D..

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

A. Swallen, S. Pirozzi, J. Piper, and A. Nelson were employed by MIM Software Inc. during the duration of this investigation. Additionally, J. Piper and A. Nelson have an ownership interest in MIM Software Inc. K.R. Padgett, F.M. Chinea, M.C. Abramowitz, A. Pollack, and R. Stoyanova declare that they have no competing interests.

Caption Electronic Supplementary Material

Supplementary Table S1

: Patient Clinical Characteristics. Supplementary Table S2: Comparison of manually drown contours on GE_T2 and GE_T2FS sequences. In the second part of the table, the reproducibility of the prostate contour in three sections of the prostate is examined. Supplementary Table S3: Comparison of manually drown contours on GE_T2FS by two expert radiation oncologists (inter-reader comparison). Supplementary Table S4: Summary of contrast comparisons. The ratio of the signal intensity of the inner rind and the outer rind is presented along with the ratio of the signal intensity between the peripheral and transition zones (PZ/TZ). Supplementary Figure S1: (top) The inner and outer rinds that were used for contrast comparisons between T2 and T2FS acquisitions; (bottom) Contrast comparisons between manually drawn TZ and PZ contours for the T2 and T2FS scans from the same patient

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Padgett, K.R., Swallen, A., Pirozzi, S. et al. Towards a universal MRI atlas of the prostate and prostate zones. Strahlenther Onkol 195, 121–130 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00066-018-1348-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00066-018-1348-5

Keywords

Schlüsselwörter

Search

Navigation