Cited by 502Medical Image Segmentation TechniquesMedical Imaging and AnalysisAdvanced Radiotherapy Techniques

Segmentation of organs‐at‐risks in head and neck CT images using convolutional neural networks

Open access
Ibragimov, Bulat, Xing, Lei·2017·Medical Physics

Abstract

PURPOSE: Accurate segmentation of organs-at-risks (OARs) is the key step for efficient planning of radiation therapy for head and neck (HaN) cancer treatment. In the work, we proposed the first deep learning-based algorithm, for segmentation of OARs in HaN CT images, and compared its performance against state-of-the-art automated segmentation algorithms, commercial software, and interobserver variability. METHODS: Convolutional neural networks (CNNs)-a concept from the field of deep learning-were used to study consistent intensity patterns of OARs from training CT images and to segment the OAR in a previously unseen test CT image. For CNN training, we extracted a representative number of positive intensity patches around voxels that belong to the OAR of interest in training CT images, and negative intensity patches around voxels that belong to the surrounding structures. These patches then passed through a sequence of CNN layers that captured local image features such as corners, end-points, and edges, and combined them into more complex high-order features that can efficiently describe the OAR. The trained network was applied to classify voxels in a region of interest in the test image where the corresponding OAR is expected to be located. We then smoothed the obtained classification results by using Markov random fields algorithm. We finally extracted the largest connected component of the smoothed voxels classified as the OAR by CNN, performed dilate-erode operations to remove cavities of the component, which resulted in segmentation of the OAR in the test image. RESULTS: The performance of CNNs was validated on segmentation of spinal cord, mandible, parotid glands, submandibular glands, larynx, pharynx, eye globes, optic nerves, and optic chiasm using 50 CT images. The obtained segmentation results varied from 37.4% Dice coefficient (DSC) for chiasm to 89.5% DSC for mandible. We also analyzed the performance of state-of-the-art algorithms and commercial software reported in the literature, and observed that CNNs demonstrate similar or superior performance on segmentation of spinal cord, mandible, parotid glands, larynx, pharynx, eye globes, and optic nerves, but inferior performance on segmentation of submandibular glands and optic chiasm. CONCLUSION: We concluded that convolution neural networks can accurately segment most of OARs using a representative database of 50 HaN CT images. At the same time, inclusion of additional information, for example, MR images, may be beneficial to some OARs with poorly visible boundaries.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/mp.12045

Cites

64 of 64 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • MR image segmentation using deep learning approaches, typically CNNs, are now penetrating the whole field of applications.

    “MR image segmentation using deep learning approaches, typically CNNs, are now penetrating the whole field of applications.”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [51]Goodfellow I Bengio Y Courville A Deep Learning Book in preparation for MIT Press 2016

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Ibragimov, B., & Xing, L.
Affiliations
Stanford Medicine (US)
Corresponding author
Ibragimov, Bulat
Venue
Medical Physics
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2017-02
Volume
44
Issue
2
Pages
547-557
ISSN
  • 0094-2405 (ISSN-L)
  • 2473-4209
OpenAlex
W2560725027
Cited by
502
References
64
Citations by year
2026: 21 · 2025: 28 · 2024: 34 · 2023: 50 · 2022: 58 · 2021: 100 · 2020: 84 · 2019: 76 · 2018: 47 · 2017: 4
FWCI
28.73
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Medical Physics (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
National Institutes of Health (1R01CA176553, R01E0116777)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Medical Image Segmentation Techniques
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Biomedical Engineering › Medical Imaging and Analysis
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Radiation › Advanced Radiotherapy Techniques
Keywords
organ-at-risk segmentation, head and neck cancer, radiotherapy treatment planning, CT images, convolutional neural networks, spinal cord, mandible, parotid gland, submandibular gland, larynx, pharynx, optic chiasm, optic nerve, eye globe, Markov random fields, interobserver variability, deep learning segmentation, connected component analysis
MeSH terms
Head and Neck Neoplasms, Humans, Image Processing, Computer-Assisted, Markov Chains, Radiotherapy Planning, Computer-Assisted, Software, Tomography, X-Ray Computed, Observer Variation, Neural Networks, Computer, Radiotherapy, Intensity-Modulated, Organs at Risk

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review