6533b823fe1ef96bd127f78f

RESEARCH PRODUCT

Deep Learning Networks for Automatic Retroperitoneal Sarcoma Segmentation in Computerized Tomography

Giuseppe SalvaggioGiuseppe CutaiaAntonio GrecoMario PaceLeonardo SalvaggioFederica VernuccioRoberto CannellaLaura AlgeriLorena IncorvaiaAlessandro StefanoMassino GaliaGiuseppe BadalamentiAlbert Comelli

subject

Fluid Flow and Transfer ProcessesTechnologyArtificial intelligenceSoft tissue sarcomaQH301-705.5Process Chemistry and TechnologyTPhysicsQC1-999General EngineeringDeep learningEngineering (General). Civil engineering (General)Computer Science ApplicationsChemistrySegmentationVolume estimationGeneral Materials ScienceDeep learning; soft tissue sarcoma; volume estimation; segmentation; artificial intelligenceTA1-2040Biology (General)InstrumentationQD1-999

description

The volume estimation of retroperitoneal sarcoma (RPS) is often difficult due to its huge dimensions and irregular shape; thus, it often requires manual segmentation, which is time-consuming and operator-dependent. This study aimed to evaluate two fully automated deep learning networks (ENet and ERFNet) for RPS segmentation. This retrospective study included 20 patients with RPS who received an abdominal computed tomography (CT) examination. Forty-nine CT examinations, with a total of 72 lesions, were included. Manual segmentation was performed by two radiologists in consensus, and automatic segmentation was performed using ENet and ERFNet. Significant differences between manual and automatic segmentation were tested using the analysis of variance (ANOVA). A set of performance indicators for the shape comparison (namely sensitivity), positive predictive value (PPV), dice similarity coefficient (DSC), volume overlap error (VOE), and volumetric differences (VD) were calculated. There were no significant differences found between the RPS volumes obtained using manual segmentation and ENet (p-value = 0.935), manual segmentation and ERFNet (p-value = 0.544), or ENet and ERFNet (p-value = 0.119). The sensitivity, PPV, DSC, VOE, and VD for ENet and ERFNet were 91.54% and 72.21%, 89.85% and 87.00%, 90.52% and 74.85%, 16.87% and 36.85%, and 2.11% and −14.80%, respectively. By using a dedicated GPU, ENet took around 15 s for segmentation versus 13 s for ERFNet. In the case of CPU, ENet took around 2 min versus 1 min for ERFNet. The manual approach required approximately one hour per segmentation. In conclusion, fully automatic deep learning networks are reliable methods for RPS volume assessment. ENet performs better than ERFNet for automatic segmentation, though it requires more time.

10.3390/app12031665http://hdl.handle.net/10447/558740