Deep Learning versus Classical Regression for Brain Tumor Patient Survival Prediction

Deep learning for regression tasks on medical imaging data has shown promising results. However, compared to other approaches, their power is strongly linked to the dataset size. In this study, we evaluate 3D-convolutional neural networks (CNNs) and classical regression methods with hand-crafted features for survival time regression of patients with high grade brain tumors. The tested CNNs for regression showed promising but unstable results. The best performing deep learning approach reached an accuracy of 51.5% on held-out samples of the training set. All tested deep learning experiments were outperformed by a Support Vector Classifier (SVC) using 30 radiomic features. The investigated features included intensity, shape, location and deep features. The submitted method to the BraTS 2018 survival prediction challenge is an ensemble of SVCs, which reached a cross-validated accuracy of 72.2% on the BraTS 2018 training set, 57.1% on the validation set, and 42.9% on the testing set. The results suggest that more training data is necessary for a stable performance of a CNN model for direct regression from magnetic resonance images, and that non-imaging clinical patient information is crucial along with imaging information.Comment: Contribution to The International Multimodal Brain Tumor Segmentation (BraTS) Challenge 2018, survival prediction tas

Automatic Brain Tumor Segmentation using Convolutional Neural Networks with Test-Time Augmentation

Automatic brain tumor segmentation plays an important role for diagnosis, surgical planning and treatment assessment of brain tumors. Deep convolutional neural networks (CNNs) have been widely used for this task. Due to the relatively small data set for training, data augmentation at training time has been commonly used for better performance of CNNs. Recent works also demonstrated the usefulness of using augmentation at test time, in addition to training time, for achieving more robust predictions. We investigate how test-time augmentation can improve CNNs' performance for brain tumor segmentation. We used different underpinning network structures and augmented the image by 3D rotation, flipping, scaling and adding random noise at both training and test time. Experiments with BraTS 2018 training and validation set show that test-time augmentation helps to improve the brain tumor segmentation accuracy and obtain uncertainty estimation of the segmentation results.Comment: 12 pages, 3 figures, MICCAI BrainLes 201

Improving Patch-Based Convolutional Neural Networks for MRI Brain Tumor Segmentation by Leveraging Location Information.

The manual brain tumor annotation process is time consuming and resource consuming, therefore, an automated and accurate brain tumor segmentation tool is greatly in demand. In this paper, we introduce a novel method to integrate location information with the state-of-the-art patch-based neural networks for brain tumor segmentation. This is motivated by the observation that lesions are not uniformly distributed across different brain parcellation regions and that a locality-sensitive segmentation is likely to obtain better segmentation accuracy. Toward this, we use an existing brain parcellation atlas in the Montreal Neurological Institute (MNI) space and map this atlas to the individual subject data. This mapped atlas in the subject data space is integrated with structural Magnetic Resonance (MR) imaging data, and patch-based neural networks, including 3D U-Net and DeepMedic, are trained to classify the different brain lesions. Multiple state-of-the-art neural networks are trained and integrated with XGBoost fusion in the proposed two-level ensemble method. The first level reduces the uncertainty of the same type of models with different seed initializations, and the second level leverages the advantages of different types of neural network models. The proposed location information fusion method improves the segmentation performance of state-of-the-art networks including 3D U-Net and DeepMedic. Our proposed ensemble also achieves better segmentation performance compared to the state-of-the-art networks in BraTS 2017 and rivals state-of-the-art networks in BraTS 2018. Detailed results are provided on the public multimodal brain tumor segmentation (BraTS) benchmarks

Uncertainty-driven refinement of tumor-core segmentation using 3D-to-2D networks with label uncertainty

The BraTS dataset contains a mixture of high-grade and low-grade gliomas, which have a rather different appearance: previous studies have shown that performance can be improved by separated training on low-grade gliomas (LGGs) and high-grade gliomas (HGGs), but in practice this information is not available at test time to decide which model to use. By contrast with HGGs, LGGs often present no sharp boundary between the tumor core and the surrounding edema, but rather a gradual reduction of tumor-cell density. Utilizing our 3D-to-2D fully convolutional architecture, DeepSCAN, which ranked highly in the 2019 BraTS challenge and was trained using an uncertainty-aware loss, we separate cases into those with a confidently segmented core, and those with a vaguely segmented or missing core. Since by assumption every tumor has a core, we reduce the threshold for classification of core tissue in those cases where the core, as segmented by the classifier, is vaguely defined or missing. We then predict survival of high-grade glioma patients using a fusion of linear regression and random forest classification, based on age, number of distinct tumor components, and number of distinct tumor cores. We present results on the validation dataset of the Multimodal Brain Tumor Segmentation Challenge 2020 (segmentation and uncertainty challenge), and on the testing set, where the method achieved 4th place in Segmentation, 1st place in uncertainty estimation, and 1st place in Survival prediction.Comment: Presented (virtually) in the MICCAI Brainles workshop 2020. Accepted for publication in Brainles proceeding

QU-BraTS: MICCAI BraTS 2020 challenge on quantifying uncertainty in brain tumor segmentation -- analysis of ranking metrics and benchmarking results

Deep learning (DL) models have provided the state-of-the-art performance in a wide variety of medical imaging benchmarking challenges, including the Brain Tumor Segmentation (BraTS) challenges. However, the task of focal pathology multi-compartment segmentation (e.g., tumor and lesion sub-regions) is particularly challenging, and potential errors hinder the translation of DL models into clinical workflows. Quantifying the reliability of DL model predictions in the form of uncertainties, could enable clinical review of the most uncertain regions, thereby building trust and paving the way towards clinical translation. Recently, a number of uncertainty estimation methods have been introduced for DL medical image segmentation tasks. Developing metrics to evaluate and compare the performance of uncertainty measures will assist the end-user in making more informed decisions. In this study, we explore and evaluate a metric developed during the BraTS 2019-2020 task on uncertainty quantification (QU-BraTS), and designed to assess and rank uncertainty estimates for brain tumor multi-compartment segmentation. This metric (1) rewards uncertainty estimates that produce high confidence in correct assertions, and those that assign low confidence levels at incorrect assertions, and (2) penalizes uncertainty measures that lead to a higher percentages of under-confident correct assertions. We further benchmark the segmentation uncertainties generated by 14 independent participating teams of QUBraTS 2020, all of which also participated in the main BraTS segmentation task. Overall, our findings confirm the importance and complementary value that uncertainty estimates provide to segmentation algorithms, and hence highlight the need for uncertainty quantification in medical image analyses. Finally, in favor of transparency and reproducibility our evaluation code is made publicly available at https://github.com/RagMeh11/QU-BraTSResearch reported in this publication was partly supported by the Informatics Technology for Cancer Research (ITCR) program of the National Cancer Institute (NCI) of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), under award numbers NIH/NCI/ITCR:U01CA242871 and NIH/NCI/ITCR:U24CA189523. It was also partly supported by the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS) of the NIH, under award number NIH/NINDS:R01NS042645.Document signat per 92 autors/autores: Raghav Mehta1 , Angelos Filos2 , Ujjwal Baid3,4,5 , Chiharu Sako3,4 , Richard McKinley6 , Michael Rebsamen6 , Katrin D¨atwyler6,53, Raphael Meier54, Piotr Radojewski6 , Gowtham Krishnan Murugesan7 , Sahil Nalawade7 , Chandan Ganesh7 , Ben Wagner7 , Fang F. Yu7 , Baowei Fei8 , Ananth J. Madhuranthakam7,9 , Joseph A. Maldjian7,9 , Laura Daza10, Catalina Gómez10, Pablo Arbeláez10, Chengliang Dai11, Shuo Wang11, Hadrien Raynaud11, Yuanhan Mo11, Elsa Angelini12, Yike Guo11, Wenjia Bai11,13, Subhashis Banerjee14,15,16, Linmin Pei17, Murat AK17, Sarahi Rosas-González18, Illyess Zemmoura18,52, Clovis Tauber18 , Minh H. Vu19, Tufve Nyholm19, Tommy L¨ofstedt20, Laura Mora Ballestar21, Veronica Vilaplana21, Hugh McHugh22,23, Gonzalo Maso Talou24, Alan Wang22,24, Jay Patel25,26, Ken Chang25,26, Katharina Hoebel25,26, Mishka Gidwani25, Nishanth Arun25, Sharut Gupta25 , Mehak Aggarwal25, Praveer Singh25, Elizabeth R. Gerstner25, Jayashree Kalpathy-Cramer25 , Nicolas Boutry27, Alexis Huard27, Lasitha Vidyaratne28, Md Monibor Rahman28, Khan M. Iftekharuddin28, Joseph Chazalon29, Elodie Puybareau29, Guillaume Tochon29, Jun Ma30 , Mariano Cabezas31, Xavier Llado31, Arnau Oliver31, Liliana Valencia31, Sergi Valverde31 , Mehdi Amian32, Mohammadreza Soltaninejad33, Andriy Myronenko34, Ali Hatamizadeh34 , Xue Feng35, Quan Dou35, Nicholas Tustison36, Craig Meyer35,36, Nisarg A. Shah37, Sanjay Talbar38, Marc-Andr Weber39, Abhishek Mahajan48, Andras Jakab47, Roland Wiest6,46 Hassan M. Fathallah-Shaykh45, Arash Nazeri40, Mikhail Milchenko140,44, Daniel Marcus40,44 , Aikaterini Kotrotsou43, Rivka Colen43, John Freymann41,42, Justin Kirby41,42, Christos Davatzikos3,4 , Bjoern Menze49,50, Spyridon Bakas∗3,4,5 , Yarin Gal∗2 , Tal Arbel∗1,51 // 1Centre for Intelligent Machines (CIM), McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada, 2Oxford Applied and Theoretical Machine Learning (OATML) Group, University of Oxford, Oxford, England, 3Center for Biomedical Image Computing and Analytics (CBICA), University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA, 4Department of Radiology, Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA, 5Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA, 6Support Center for Advanced Neuroimaging (SCAN), University Institute of Diagnostic and Interventional Neuroradiology, University of Bern, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital, Bern, Switzerland, 7Department of Radiology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX, USA, 8Department of Bioengineering, University of Texas at Dallas, Texas, USA, 9Advanced Imaging Research Center, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX, USA, 10Universidad de los Andes, Bogotá, Colombia, 11Data Science Institute, Imperial College London, London, UK, 12NIHR Imperial BRC, ITMAT Data Science Group, Imperial College London, London, UK, 13Department of Brain Sciences, Imperial College London, London, UK, 14Machine Intelligence Unit, Indian Statistical Institute, Kolkata, India, 15Department of CSE, University of Calcutta, Kolkata, India, 16 Division of Visual Information and Interaction (Vi2), Department of Information Technology, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden, 17Department of Diagnostic Radiology, The University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, PA, USA, 18UMR U1253 iBrain, Université de Tours, Inserm, Tours, France, 19Department of Radiation Sciences, Ume˚a University, Ume˚a, Sweden, 20Department of Computing Science, Ume˚a University, Ume˚a, Sweden, 21Signal Theory and Communications Department, Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya, BarcelonaTech, Barcelona, Spain, 22Faculty of Medical and Health Sciences, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand, 23Radiology Department, Auckland City Hospital, Auckland, New Zealand, 24Auckland Bioengineering Institute, University of Auckland, New Zealand, 25Athinoula A. Martinos Center for Biomedical Imaging, Department of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA, 26Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, USA, 27EPITA Research and Development Laboratory (LRDE), France, 28Vision Lab, Electrical and Computer Engineering, Old Dominion University, Norfolk, VA 23529, USA, 29EPITA Research and Development Laboratory (LRDE), Le Kremlin-Bicˆetre, France, 30School of Science, Nanjing University of Science and Technology, 31Research Institute of Computer Vision and Robotics, University of Girona, Spain, 32Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of Tehran, Iran, 33School of Computer Science, University of Nottingham, UK, 34NVIDIA, Santa Clara, CA, US, 35Biomedical Engineering, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, USA, 36Radiology and Medical Imaging, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, USA, 37Department of Electrical Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology - Jodhpur, Jodhpur, India, 38SGGS ©2021 Mehta et al.. License: CC-BY 4.0. arXiv:2112.10074v1 [eess.IV] 19 Dec 2021 Mehta et al. Institute of Engineering and Technology, Nanded, India, 39Institute of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Pediatric Radiology and Neuroradiology, University Medical Center, 40Department of Radiology, Washington University, St. Louis, MO, USA, 41Leidos Biomedical Research, Inc, Frederick National Laboratory for Cancer Research, Frederick, MD, USA, 42Cancer Imaging Program, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA, 43Department of Diagnostic Radiology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA, 44Neuroimaging Informatics and Analysis Center, Washington University, St. Louis, MO, USA, 45Department of Neurology, The University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL, USA, 46Institute for Surgical Technology and Biomechanics, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland, 47Center for MR-Research, University Children’s Hospital Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland, 48Tata Memorial Centre, Homi Bhabha National Institute, Mumbai, India, 49Department of Quantitative Biomedicine, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland, 50Department of Informatics, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany, 51MILA - Quebec Artificial Intelligence Institute, Montreal, QC, Canada, 52Neurosurgery department, CHRU de Tours, Tours, France, 53 Human Performance Lab, Schulthess Clinic, Zurich, Switzerland, 54 armasuisse S+T, Thun, Switzerland.Preprin

QU-BraTS: MICCAI BraTS 2020 Challenge on Quantifying Uncertainty in Brain Tumor Segmentation - Analysis of Ranking Scores and Benchmarking Results

Deep learning (DL) models have provided state-of-the-art performance in various medical imaging benchmarking challenges, including the Brain Tumor Segmentation (BraTS) challenges. However, the task of focal pathology multi-compartment segmentation (e.g., tumor and lesion sub-regions) is particularly challenging, and potential errors hinder translating DL models into clinical workflows. Quantifying the reliability of DL model predictions in the form of uncertainties could enable clinical review of the most uncertain regions, thereby building trust and paving the way toward clinical translation. Several uncertainty estimation methods have recently been introduced for DL medical image segmentation tasks. Developing scores to evaluate and compare the performance of uncertainty measures will assist the end-user in making more informed decisions. In this study, we explore and evaluate a score developed during the BraTS 2019 and BraTS 2020 task on uncertainty quantification (QU-BraTS) and designed to assess and rank uncertainty estimates for brain tumor multi-compartment segmentation. This score (1) rewards uncertainty estimates that produce high confidence in correct assertions and those that assign low confidence levels at incorrect assertions, and (2) penalizes uncertainty measures that lead to a higher percentage of under-confident correct assertions. We further benchmark the segmentation uncertainties generated by 14 independent participating teams of QU-BraTS 2020, all of which also participated in the main BraTS segmentation task. Overall, our findings confirm the importance and complementary value that uncertainty estimates provide to segmentation algorithms, highlighting the need for uncertainty quantification in medical image analyses. Finally, in favor of transparency and reproducibility, our evaluation code is made publicly available at: this https URL