Automatic Brain Tumor Segmentation and Overall Survival Prediction Using Machine Learning Algorithms

  • Eric Carver
  • Chang Liu
  • Weiwei Zong
  • Zhenzhen Dai
  • James M. Snyder
  • Joon Lee
  • Ning WenEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11384)


Purpose: This study was designed to evaluate the ability of a U-net neural net-work to properly identify three regions of a brain tumor and an ELM for the prediction of patient overall survival after gross tumor resection using preoperative MR images.

Methods: 210 GBM patients were used for training, while 66 LGG and GBM patients were used for validation. Multiple preprocessing steps were performed on each patient’s data before loading them into the model. The segmentation model consists of three different U-nets, one for each region of interest. These created segmentations were then analyzed by use of common quantitative metrics with respect to physician created contours. Regarding the patient overall survival prediction, 59 high grade glioma patients with gross total resection (GTR) were provided for training. 28 patients with GTR were used to validate the algorithm.

Results: The average [s.d] DSC for the whole tumor, enhanced tumor, and tumor core contours were 0.882 [0.080], 0.712 [0.294], and 0.769 [0.263], respectively. The average [s.d.] Hausdorff distance were 7.09 [11.57], 4.46 [8.32], and 9.57 [14.08], respectively. The average [s.d.] sensitivity for the whole tumor, enhanced tumor, and tumor core contours were 0.887 [0.126], 0.770 [0.245], and 0.750 [0.293], respectively. The average [s.d.] specificity was 0. 993 [0.005], 0.998 [0.003], 0.998 [0.002], respectively. The predictive power of patient overall survival is 0.607 using an extreme learning machine algorithm.

Conclusion: The U-Net model was very effective in determining accurate location of the whole tumor and segmenting the whole tumor, enhancing tumor and tumor core. The most predictive features of patient overall survival are both age and location of the tumor when all 163 validation cases were utilized.


Magnetic resonance imaging Neural network U-net 



This study was supported by a Research Scholar Grant, RSG-15-137-01-CCE from the American Cancer Society.


  1. 1.
    Stupp, R., Taillibert, S., Kanner, A., et al.: Effect of tumor-treating fields plus maintenance temozolomide vs maintenance temozolomide alone on survival in patients with glioblastoma: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA 318, 2306–2316 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ostrom, Q.T., Gittleman, H., Liao, P., et al.: Cbtrus statistical report: primary brain and other central nervous system tumors diagnosed in the united states in 2010–2014. Neuro Oncol. 19, v1–v88 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ohgaki, H., Kleihues, P.: The definition of primary and secondary glioblastoma. Clin. Cancer Res. 19, 764–772 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Toward precision medicine: Building a knowledge network for biomedical research and a new taxonomy of disease. Washington (DC) (2011) Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Menze, B.H., Jakab, A., Bauer, S., et al.: The multimodal brain tumor image segmentation benchmark (brats). IEEE Trans. Med. Imaging 34, 1993–2024 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bakas, S., Akbari, H., Sotiras, A., et al.: Advancing the cancer genome atlas glioma mri collections with expert segmentation labels and radiomic features. Sci. Data 4, 170117 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bakas, S.,et al.: Segmentation labels and radiomic features for the pre-operative scans of the TCGA-GBM collection. In: The Cancer Imaging Archive (2017)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bakas, S., et al.: Segmentation labels and radiomic features for the pre-operative scans of the TCGA-LGG collection. In: The Cancer Imaging Archive (2017)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Pelt, D.M., Sethian, J.A.: A mixed-scale dense convolutional neural network for image analysis. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. 115, 254 (2018)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ronneberger, Olaf., Fischer, P., Brox, T.: U-net: convolutional networks for biomedical image segmentation. In: Navab, N., Hornegger, J., Wells, W.M., Frangi, A.F. (eds.) MICCAI 2015. LNCS, vol. 9351, pp. 234–241. Springer, Cham (2015). Scholar
  11. 11.
    Keras, C.F.: Keras. Github Repository (2015)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bakas, S., Reyes, M., et al.: Identifying the best machine learning algorithms for brain tumor segmentation, progression assessment, and overall survival prediction in the brats challenge. arXiv, 2018
  13. 13.
    Kumarasiri, A., Siddiqui, F., Liu, C., et al.: Deformable image registration based automatic CT-to-CT contour propagation for head and neck adaptive radiotherapy in the routine clinical setting. Med. Phys. 41, 121712 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Huang, G.B., Zhou, H., Ding, X., Zhang, R.: Extreme learning machine for regression and multiclass classification. IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. Part B (Cybern.) 42, 513–529 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Varghese Alex, M.S., Krishnamurthi, G.: Brain tumor segmentation from multi modal MR images using fully convolutional neural network. Spain (2017)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Amorim, P.H.A.C., Escudero, G.G., Oliveira, D.D.C., Pereira, S.M., Santos, H.M., Scussel, A.A.: 3D u-nets for brain tumor segmentation in MICCAI. Spain (2017)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Beers, A., et al.: Sequential 3D U-nets for brain tumor segmentation. Spain (2017)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Feng, X., Meyer, C.: Patch-based 3D U-net for brain tumor segmentation. Spain (2017)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Rodríguez Colmeiro, R.G., Verrastro, C.A., Grosges, T.: Multimodal brain tumor segmentation using 3D convolutional networks. In: Crimi, A., Bakas, S., Kuijf, H., Menze, B., Reyes, M. (eds.) BrainLes 2017. LNCS, vol. 10670, pp. 226–240. Springer, Cham (2018). Scholar
  20. 20.
    Baid, U., et al.: Gbm segmentation with 3D U-net and survivalprediction with radiomics. Spain (2018)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Wen, P.Y., Macdonald, D.R., Reardon, D.A., et al.: Updated response assessment criteria for high-grade gliomas: response assessment in neuro-oncology working group. J. Clin. Oncol. 28, 1963–1972 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Eric Carver
    • 1
    • 3
  • Chang Liu
    • 1
  • Weiwei Zong
    • 1
  • Zhenzhen Dai
    • 1
  • James M. Snyder
    • 2
  • Joon Lee
    • 1
  • Ning Wen
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of Radiation OncologyHenry Ford Health SystemDetroitUSA
  2. 2.Department of NeurosurgeryHenry Ford Health SystemDetroitUSA
  3. 3.Department of OncologyWayne State UniversityDetroitUSA

Personalised recommendations