» Articles » PMID: 38967895

Training and Assessing Convolutional Neural Network Performance in Automatic Vascular Segmentation Using Ga-68 DOTATATE PET/CT

Overview
Publisher Springer
Specialty Radiology
Date 2024 Jul 5
PMID 38967895
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

To evaluate a convolutional neural network's performance (nnU-Net) in the assessment of vascular contours, calcification and PET tracer activity using Ga-68 DOTATATE PET/CT. Patients who underwent Ga-68 DOTATATE PET/CT imaging over a 12-month period for neuroendocrine investigation were included. Manual cardiac and aortic segmentations were performed by an experienced observer. Scans were randomly allocated in ratio 64:16:20 for training, validation and testing of the nnU-Net model. PET tracer uptake and calcium scoring were compared between segmentation methods and different observers. 116 patients (53.5% female) with a median age of 64.5 years (range 23-79) were included. There were strong, positive correlations between all segmentations (mostly r > 0.98). There were no significant differences between manual and AI segmentation of SUV for global cardiac (mean ± SD 0.71 ± 0.22 vs. 0.71 ± 0.22; mean diff 0.001 ± 0.008, p > 0.05), ascending aorta (mean ± SD 0.44 ± 0.14 vs. 0.44 ± 0.14; mean diff 0.002 ± 0.01, p > 0.05), aortic arch (mean ± SD 0.44 ± 0.10 vs. 0.43 ± 0.10; mean diff 0.008 ± 0.16, p > 0.05) and descending aorta (mean ± SD < 0.001; 0.58 ± 0.12 vs. 0.57 ± 0.12; mean diff 0.01 ± 0.03, p > 0.05) contours. There was excellent agreement between the majority of manual and AI segmentation measures (r ≥ 0.80) and in all vascular contour calcium scores. Compared with the manual segmentation approach, the CNN required a significantly lower workflow time. AI segmentation of vascular contours using nnU-Net resulted in very similar measures of PET tracer uptake and vascular calcification when compared to an experienced observer and significantly reduced workflow time.

References
1.
Wynn T, Vannella K . Macrophages in Tissue Repair, Regeneration, and Fibrosis. Immunity. 2016; 44(3):450-462. PMC: 4794754. DOI: 10.1016/j.immuni.2016.02.015. View

2.
Parry R, Majeed K, Pixley F, Hillis G, Francis R, Schultz C . Unravelling the role of macrophages in cardiovascular inflammation through imaging: a state-of-the-art review. Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2022; 23(12):e504-e525. PMC: 9671294. DOI: 10.1093/ehjci/jeac167. View

3.
Ma J, Chen J, Ng M, Huang R, Li Y, Li C . Loss odyssey in medical image segmentation. Med Image Anal. 2021; 71:102035. DOI: 10.1016/j.media.2021.102035. View

4.
Agatston A, Janowitz W, HILDNER F, Zusmer N, VIAMONTE Jr M, Detrano R . Quantification of coronary artery calcium using ultrafast computed tomography. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1990; 15(4):827-32. DOI: 10.1016/0735-1097(90)90282-t. View

5.
Bland J, Altman D . Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet. 1986; 1(8476):307-10. View