Umit Yoruk1,2, Brian Hargreaves2, and Shreyas Vasanawala2
1Electrical Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, United States, 2Radiology, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, United States
Synopsis
Glomerular
filtration rate (GFR) estimation can be achieved using dynamic contrast
enhanced MRI (DCE-MRI) and pharmacokinetic models. The segmentation of kidneys
is essential for obtaining the time intensity curves needed by these models. Manual
segmentation of kidneys is one of the most time consuming and labor-intensive
steps of GFR analysis as it can take several hours and require trained personnel.
Here, we introduce a novel method for automatic renal segmentation based on
morphological segmentation and machine learning, and assess the performance of
the method.Purpose
Glomerular filtration rate (GFR) can be
estimated using dynamic contrast enhanced MRI (DCE-MRI) and pharmacokinetic
models
1-3. The pharmacokinetic models calculate the GFR from the
signal intensity changes in the aorta and the renal cortex, obtained from
DCE-MRI data by segmenting these regions of interest. Manual segmentation of
kidneys can take several hours, adding cost, and many clinics lack personnel
for this labor-intensive task. Here, we describe a novel method for automatic
renal segmentation based on morphological segmentation and machine learning,
and assess the performance of the method.
Methods
Automated
segmentation approach: The segmentation of the renal cortex is performed in
two steps (Fig.1). The first step is the segmentation of the kidney from the
abdominal images using morphological segmentation methods. This process starts
by creating a volumetric image dataset by applying maximum intensity projection
in time (MIP-t). As kidneys typically enhance intensely, MIP-t creates high
contrast between kidneys and the surrounding tissues (Fig.2a). Then, a local
intensity dependent binary thresholding method (Local Otsu) is applied to all
slices in axial, sagittal and coronal planes removing the dark background and
leaving only the bright regions (Fig.2b). The connected components are
identified in the 3D volume and treated as an object. Small connections between
large objects are broken using watershed segmentation in coronal projections (Fig.2c).
The result of the morphological segmentation step is a series of 3D objects
that correspond to the high intensity regions of the MR images.
The second step is the segmentation of the
kidney into cortex and medullary regions using machine learning techniques.
First, a support vector classifier (SVC) is used to identify the kidney
parenchymal voxels in the abdominal images. Classification was performed on
each voxel using 6 features: 3 features for position (x, y, z) and 3 features
for percent signal change. Percent signal change (ΔS) features are calculated
using ΔS(t)=S(t)−S(0)S(0) where S(t) is the signal intensity of the voxel at
time t. Dimensionality reduction (PCA) is applied on ΔS to reduce it to 3
dimensions. The result of this classification is used for identification of
kidney objects in the morphological segmentation output. Once the kidney
objects are identified, another SVC is applied to these objects to separate
cortex from medulla. This classification is performed on each voxel within the
kidney object using 53 features: 3 for position, 25 for percent signal change
and 25 for signal intensity over time with no dimensionality reduction.
Experimental validation
11 consecutive pediatric subjects clinically
referred for contrast enhanced MRI on a GE 3T scanner were retrospectively
identified with IRB approval. Acquisitions were performed using VDRad
4
with parameters: 15° flip angle, ±100kHz bandwidth, TR = 3.3ms, matrix =
192x180, FOV = 320x256 mm, slice thickness = 2.4 mm, 80 slices, 36 temporal
phases, 3s temporal resolution and 6.2x acceleration, 32 channel torso coil.
Injection protocol: single dose contrast diluted to 10ml was power injected
at
a rate of 1ml/s. Manual segmentations of images were performed before training
our automatic segmentation models. Training and testing was performed using a leave
one out cross-validation (LOOCV). Segmentation results were used to calculate
the transfer coefficients (Ktrans) of kidneys using a 2-compartment model
2.
The pharmacokinetic analysis was performed using a common aortic input function
between automatic and manual renal segmentations. Automatic segmentation results were compared
to the manual segmentation maps using precision (PPV) and recall metrics
(sensitivity) as well as Ktrans values.
Results/Discussion
Some of the segmentation maps generated by this
method are shown in Fig.3. The results show that the method in general provides
good renal cortex coverage (recall=0.92±0.06) but misclassifies some medulla voxels
as cortex (precision=0.83±0.08). These misclassifications cause very little to
no change in the average signal intensity of the renal cortex. The average
estimated Ktrans was 0.23±0.6min
-1 using the automated method and
0.23±0.7min
-1 using the manual method. However, the low precision
causes large errors in estimated renal cortex volume which is needed for GFR
estimation. Total renal volume is more accurate because it isn’t affected by
the cortex-medulla misclassifications. Hence, we trained a linear regression
model using RANSAC to predict the cortex volume from total renal volume
yielding a 44% reduction in GFR RMSE (Fig.4). The mean error in the cortical
volume estimates after the correction, 6.2±5.9ml, was below 16.3±11.2ml the observed
average error between two human experts
5. The GFR estimates and split
function were computed after volume correction (Fig.5).
Conclusion
We have presented a fully automatic renal
segmentation method for detecting renal cortex and showed that renal filtration
parameter estimates are very similar to the manual segmentation.
Acknowledgements
Funding for this research was provided by NIH grants R01 EB009690, P41 EB015891 and GE Healthcare.References
1. N. Hackstein et al. Journal of Magnetic Resonance
Imaging, vol. 18, no. 6, pp. 714–725, Dec. 2003.
2. P. S. Tofts et al. European Radiology, vol. 22, no. 6,
pp. 1320-1330, 2012.
3. L. Annet et al. Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging,
vol. 20, no. 5, pp. 843-849.
4. Cheng JY et al. Proc ISMRM Workshop on Data
Sampling and Image Recon., Sedona, AZ; 2013.
5. T. Song et al. Biomedical Imaging: From Nano to Macro,
2008. ISBI 2008. 5th IEEE International Symposium on, 2008, pp. 37–40.