Advertisement

Radiological Physics and Technology

, Volume 11, Issue 4, pp 434–444 | Cite as

Feasibility of anatomical feature points for the estimation of prostate locations in the Bayesian delineation frameworks for prostate cancer radiotherapy

  • Kenta Ninomiya
  • Hidetaka Arimura
  • Motoki Sasahara
  • Yudai Kai
  • Taka-aki Hirose
  • Saiji Ohga
Article

Abstract

This study aimed to investigate the feasibility of anatomical feature points for the estimation of prostate locations in the Bayesian delineation frameworks for prostate cancer radiotherapy. The relationships between the reference centroids of prostate regions (CPRs) (prostate locations) and anatomical feature points were explored, and the most feasible anatomical feature points were selected based on the smallest location estimation errors of CPRs and the largest Dice’s similarity coefficient (DSC) between the reference and extracted prostates. The reference CPRs were calculated according to reference prostate contours determined by radiation oncologists. Five anatomical feature points were manually determined on a prostate, bladder, and rectum in a sagittal plane of a planning computed tomography image for each case. The CPRs were estimated using three machine learning architectures [artificial neural network, random forest, and support vector machine (SVM)], which learned the relationships between the reference CPRs and anatomical feature points. The CPRs were applied for placing a prostate probabilistic atlas at the coordinates and extracting prostate regions using a Bayesian delineation framework. The average estimation errors without and with SVM using three feature points, which indicated the best performance, were 5.6 ± 3.7 mm and 1.8 ± 1.0 mm, respectively (the smallest error) (p < 0.001). The average DSCs without and with SVM using the three feature points were 0.69 ± 0.13 and 0.82 ± 0.055, respectively (the highest DSC) (p < 0.001). The anatomical feature points may be feasible for the estimation of prostate locations, which can be applied to the general Bayesian delineation frameworks for prostate cancer radiotherapy.

Keywords

Anatomical feature points Prostate location Machine learning Probabilistic atlas Bayesian inference Prostate cancer radiotherapy 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Human rights

This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of the Kyushu University Hospital.

Animal rights

This article does not include other studies using animal models.

References

  1. 1.
    Torre LA, Bray F, Siegel RL, Ferlay J, Lortet-tieulent J, Jemal A. Global cancer statistics 2012. CA Cancer J Clin. 2015;65:87–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hamdy FC, Donovan JL, Lane JA, Mason M, Metcalfe C, Holding P, et al. 10-year outcomes after monitoring, surgery, or radiotherapy for localized prostate cancer. N Engl J Med. 2016;375:1415–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Miller KD, Siegel RL, Lin CC, Mariotto AB, Kramer JL, Rowland JH, et al. Cancer treatment and survivorship statistics, 2016. CA Cancer J Clin. 2016;66:271–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Fiorino C, Reni M, Bolognesi A, Cattaneo GM, Calandrino R. Intra- and inter-observer variability in contouring prostate and seminal vesicles: Implications for conformal treatment planning. Radiother Oncol. 1998;47:285–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Livsey JE, Wylie JP, Swindell R, Khoo VS, Cowan RA, Logue JP. Do differences in target volume definition in prostate cancer lead to clinically relevant differences in normal tissue toxicity? Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2004;60:1076–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Esposito M, Maggi G, Marino C, Bottalico L, Cagni E, Carbonini C, et al. Multicentre treatment planning inter-comparison in a national context: the liver stereotactic ablative radiotherapy case. Phys Medica. 2016;32:277–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Giglioli FR, Strigari L, Ragona R, Borzì GR, Cagni E, Carbonini C, et al. Lung stereotactic ablative body radiotherapy: a large scale multi-institutional planning comparison for interpreting results of multi-institutional studies. Phys Med. 2016;32:600–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Chen S, Lovelock DM, Radke Richard JRJ. Segmenting the prostate and rectum in CT imagery using anatomical constraints. Med Image Anal. 2011;15:1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Martínez F, Romero E, Dréan G, Simon A, Haigron P, De Crevoisier R, et al. Segmentation of pelvic structures for planning CT using a geometrical shape model tuned by a multi-scale edge detector. Phys Med Biol. 2014;59:1471–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Acosta O, Dowling J, Drean G, Simon A, De Crevoisier R, Haigron P. Multi-atlas-based segmentation of pelvic structures from ct scans for planning in prostate cancer radiotherapy. Abdomen Thorac Imaging An Eng Clin Perspect. 2014;623–56.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Roeske JC, Forman JD, Mesina CF, He T, Pelizzari CA, Fontenla E, et al. Evaluation of changes in the size and location of the prostate, seminal vesicles, bladder, and rectum during a course of external beam radiation therapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1995;33:1321–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Zelefsky MJ, Crean D, Mageras GS, Lyass O, Happersett L, Clifton Ling C, et al. Quantification and predictors of prostate position variability in 50 patients evaluated with multiple CT scans during conformal radiotherapy. Radiother Oncol. 1999;50:225–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Zellars RC, Roberson PL, Strawderman M, Zhang D, Sandler HM, Ten Haken RK, et al. Prostate position late in the course of external beam therapy: patterns and predictors. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2000;47:655–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Herman GT, Zheng J, Bucholtz CA. Shape-based interpolation. IEEE Comput Gr Appl. 1992;12:69–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Rumelhart DE, Hinton GE, Williams RJ. Learning internal representations by error propagation. Parallel Distrib Process Explor Microstruct Cogn. 1986;318–62.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Meinshausen N. Quantile regression forests. J Mach Learn Res. 2006;7:983–99.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Vapnik VN. The nature of statistical learning theory. New York: Springer; 1995.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    fitnet (Function fitting neural network). Mathworks. MATLAB. https://jp.mathworks.com/help/nnet/ref/fitnet.html. Accessed 20 Jul 2018.
  19. 19.
    TreeBagger (Create bag of decision trees). Mathworks. MATLAB. https://jp.mathworks.com/help/stats/treebagger.html. Accessed 20 Jul 2018.
  20. 20.
    fitrsvm (Fit a support vector machine regression model). Mathworks. MATLAB. https://jp.mathworks.com/help/stats/fitrsvm.html. Accessed 20 Jul 2018.
  21. 21.
    Kobatake H, Matsutani Y. Computational anatomy based on whole body imaging. Tokyo: Springer; 2017.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Lebesque JV, Bruce AM, Guus Kroes AP, Touw A, Shouman T, van Herk M. Variation in volumes, dose-volume histograms, and estimated normal tissue complication probabilities of rectum and bladder during conformal radiotherapy of T3 prostate cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1995;33:1109–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Hair JF, Black WC, Babin BJ, Anderson RE. Multivariate data analysis. New York: Pearson; 2010.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Bishop CM. Pattern recognition and machine learning. Pattern recognition. New York: Springer; 2006.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Shimizu A, Ohno R, Ikegami T, Kobatake H, Nawano S, Smutek D. Segmentation of multiple organs in non-contrast 3D abdominal CT images. Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg. 2007;2:135–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Whitaker RT. A level-set approach to 3D reconstruction from range data. Int J Comput Vis. 1998;29:203–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Chan TF, Vese LA. Active contours without edges. IEEE Trans Image Process. 2001;10:266–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Caselles V, Kimmel R, Sapiro G. Geodesic active contours. Int J Comput Vis. 1997;22:61–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Japanese Society of Radiological Technology and Japan Society of Medical Physics 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Division of Medical Quantum Science, Department of Health Sciences, Graduate School of Medical SciencesKyushu UniversityFukuokaJapan
  2. 2.Division of Medical Quantum Science, Department of Health Sciences, Faculty of Medical SciencesKyushu UniversityFukuokaJapan
  3. 3.Kumamoto University HospitalKumamotoJapan
  4. 4.Kyushu University HospitalFukuokaJapan
  5. 5.Department of Clinical Radiology, Graduate School of Medical SciencesKyushu UniversityFukuokaJapan

Personalised recommendations