Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jun 30, 2025
Quantitation of Protein Expression and Co-localization Using Multiplexed Immuno-histochemical Staining and Multispectral Imaging
Published on: April 8, 2016
Automated prostate gland segmentation in challenging clinical cases: comparison of three artificial intelligence
Latrice A Johnson1, Stephanie A Harmon1, Enis C Yilmaz1
1Molecular Imaging Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA.
Objective:
Automated methods for prostate segmentation on MRI are typically developed under ideal scanning and anatomical conditions. This study evaluates three different prostate segmentation AI algorithms in a challenging population of patients with prior treatments, variable anatomic characteristics, complex clinical history, or atypical MRI acquisition parameters.
Materials And Methods:
A single institution retrospective database was queried for the following conditions at prostate MRI: prior prostate-specific oncologic treatment, transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP), abdominal perineal resection (APR), hip prosthesis (HP), diversity of prostate volumes (large ≥ 150 cc, small ≤ 25 cc), whole gland tumor burden, magnet strength, noted poor quality, and various scanners (outside/vendors). Final inclusion criteria required availability of axial T2-weighted (T2W) sequence and corresponding prostate organ segmentation from an expert radiologist. Three previously developed algorithms were evaluated: (1) deep learning (DL)-based model, (2) commercially available shape-based model, and (3) federated DL-based model. Dice Similarity Coefficient (DSC) was calculated compared to expert. DSC by model and scan factors were evaluated with Wilcox signed-rank test and linear mixed effects (LMER) model.
Results:
683 scans (651 patients) met inclusion criteria (mean prostate volume 60.1 cc [9.05-329 cc]). Overall DSC scores for models 1, 2, and 3 were 0.916 (0.707-0.971), 0.873 (0-0.997), and 0.894 (0.025-0.961), respectively, with DL-based models demonstrating significantly higher performance (p < 0.01). In sub-group analysis by factors, Model 1 outperformed Model 2 (all p < 0.05) and Model 3 (all p < 0.001). Performance of all models was negatively impacted by prostate volume and poor signal quality (p < 0.01). Shape-based factors influenced DL models (p < 0.001) while signal factors influenced all (p < 0.001).
Conclusion:
Factors affecting anatomical and signal conditions of the prostate gland can adversely impact both DL and non-deep learning-based segmentation models.
