» Articles » PMID: 34792835

Segmentation of the Aorta and Pulmonary Arteries Based on 4D Flow MRI in the Pediatric Setting Using Fully Automated Multi-Site, Multi-Vendor, and Multi-Label Dense U-Net

Overview
Date 2021 Nov 18
PMID 34792835
Citations 8
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Background: Automated segmentation using convolutional neural networks (CNNs) have been developed using four-dimensional (4D) flow magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). To broaden usability for congenital heart disease (CHD), training with multi-institution data is necessary. However, the performance impact of heterogeneous multi-site and multi-vendor data on CNNs is unclear.

Purpose: To investigate multi-site CNN segmentation of 4D flow MRI for pediatric blood flow measurement.

Study Type: Retrospective.

Population: A total of 174 subjects across two sites (female: 46%; N = 38 healthy controls, N = 136 CHD patients). Participants from site 1 (N = 100), site 2 (N = 74), and both sites (N = 174) were divided into subgroups to conduct 10-fold cross validation (10% for testing, 90% for training).

Field Strength/sequence: 3 T/1.5 T; retrospectively gated gradient recalled echo-based 4D flow MRI.

Assessment: Accuracy of the 3D CNN segmentations trained on data from single site (single-site CNNs) and data across both sites (multi-site CNN) were evaluated by geometrical similarity (Dice score, human segmentation as ground truth) and net flow quantification at the ascending aorta (Qs), main pulmonary artery (Qp), and their balance (Qp/Qs), between human observers, single-site and multi-site CNNs.

Statistical Tests: Kruskal-Wallis test, Wilcoxon rank-sum test, and Bland-Altman analysis. A P-value <0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Results: No difference existed between single-site and multi-site CNNs for geometrical similarity in the aorta by Dice score (site 1: 0.916 vs. 0.915, P = 0.55; site 2: 0.906 vs. 0.904, P = 0.69) and for the pulmonary arteries (site 1: 0.894 vs. 0.895, P = 0.64; site 2: 0.870 vs. 0.869, P = 0.96). Qs site-1 medians were 51.0-51.3 mL/cycle (P = 0.81) and site-2 medians were 66.7-69.4 mL/cycle (P = 0.84). Qp site-1 medians were 46.8-48.0 mL/cycle (P = 0.97) and site-2 medians were 76.0-77.4 mL/cycle (P = 0.98). Qp/Qs site-1 medians were 0.87-0.88 (P = 0.97) and site-2 medians were 1.01-1.03 (P = 0.43). Bland-Altman analysis for flow quantification found equivalent performance.

Data Conclusion: Multi-site CNN-based segmentation and blood flow measurement are feasible for pediatric 4D flow MRI and maintain performance of single-site CNNs.

Level Of Evidence: 3 TECHNICAL EFFICACY: Stage 2.

Citing Articles

Assessment of abnormal transvalvular flow and wall shear stress direction for pediatric/young adults with bicuspid aortic valve: A cross-sectional four-dimensional flow study.

Fujiwara T, Malone L, Chatfield K, Berthusen A, Fonseca B, Browne L J Cardiovasc Magn Reson. 2024; 26(2):101102.

PMID: 39326557 PMC: 11647488. DOI: 10.1016/j.jocmr.2024.101102.


Machine Learning-Based Segmentation of the Thoracic Aorta with Congenital Valve Disease Using MRI.

Sundstrom E, Laudato M Bioengineering (Basel). 2023; 10(10).

PMID: 37892946 PMC: 10604748. DOI: 10.3390/bioengineering10101216.


Reconstruction and Validation of Arterial Geometries for Computational Fluid Dynamics Using Multiple Temporal Frames of 4D Flow-MRI Magnitude Images.

Black S, Maclean C, Barrientos P, Ritos K, Kazakidi A Cardiovasc Eng Technol. 2023; 14(5):655-676.

PMID: 37653353 PMC: 10602980. DOI: 10.1007/s13239-023-00679-x.


4D Flow cardiovascular magnetic resonance consensus statement: 2023 update.

Bissell M, Raimondi F, Ait Ali L, Allen B, Barker A, Bolger A J Cardiovasc Magn Reson. 2023; 25(1):40.

PMID: 37474977 PMC: 10357639. DOI: 10.1186/s12968-023-00942-z.


Segmentation of 4D Flow MRI: Comparison between 3D Deep Learning and Velocity-Based Level Sets.

Barrera-Naranjo A, Marin-Castrillon D, Decourselle T, Lin S, Leclerc S, Morgant M J Imaging. 2023; 9(6).

PMID: 37367471 PMC: 10301513. DOI: 10.3390/jimaging9060123.


References
1.
Berhane H, Scott M, Elbaz M, Jarvis K, McCarthy P, Carr J . Fully automated 3D aortic segmentation of 4D flow MRI for hemodynamic analysis using deep learning. Magn Reson Med. 2020; 84(4):2204-2218. PMC: 7724647. DOI: 10.1002/mrm.28257. View

2.
Isorni M, Moisson L, Moussa N, Monnot S, Raimondi F, Roussin R . 4D flow cardiac magnetic resonance in children and adults with congenital heart disease: Clinical experience in a high volume center. Int J Cardiol. 2020; 320:168-177. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijcard.2020.07.021. View

3.
Taha A, Hanbury A . Metrics for evaluating 3D medical image segmentation: analysis, selection, and tool. BMC Med Imaging. 2015; 15:29. PMC: 4533825. DOI: 10.1186/s12880-015-0068-x. View

4.
Piatti F, Pirola S, Bissell M, Nesteruk I, Sturla F, Della Corte A . Towards the improved quantification of in vivo abnormal wall shear stresses in BAV-affected patients from 4D-flow imaging: Benchmarking and application to real data. J Biomech. 2016; 50:93-101. DOI: 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2016.11.044. View

5.
Sedghi Gamechi Z, Bons L, Giordano M, Bos D, Budde R, Kofoed K . Automated 3D segmentation and diameter measurement of the thoracic aorta on non-contrast enhanced CT. Eur Radiol. 2019; 29(9):4613-4623. PMC: 6682850. DOI: 10.1007/s00330-018-5931-z. View