Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Segmentation of osteosarcoma tumor using diffusion weighted MRI: a comparative study using nine segmentation algorithms

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Signal, Image and Video Processing Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Osteosarcoma is a primary malignant bone tumor in children and adolescents with significant morbidity and poor prognosis. Diffusion weighted imaging (DWI) plays a crucial role in diagnosis and prognosis of this malignant disease by capturing cellular changes in tumor tissue early in the course of treatment without any contrast injection. Segmentation of tumor in DWI is challenging due to low signal-to-noise ratio, partial-volume effects, intensity inhomogeneities and irregular shape of osteosarcoma. The purpose of this study was to segment osteosarcoma solely utilizing DWI and identify effective and robust technique(s) for tumor segmentation. DWI dataset of fifty-five (N = 55; male:female = 41:14; Age = 17.8 ± 7.4 years) patients with osteosarcoma was acquired before treatment. Total nine automated and semi-automated segmentation algorithms based on (1) Otsu thresholding (OT), (2) Otsu threshold-based region growing (OT-RG), (3) Active contour (AC), (4) Simple linear iterative clustering Superpixels (SLIC-S), (5) Fuzzy c-means clustering (FCM), (6) Graph cut (GC), (7) Logistic regression (LR) (8) Linear support vector machines (L-SVM) and (9) Deep feed-forward neural network (DNN) were implemented. Segmentation accuracy was estimated by Dice coefficient (DC), Jaccard Index (JI), precision (P) and recall (R) using manually demarcated ground-truth tumor mask by a radiologist. Evaluated apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) in segmented tumor mask and ground-truth tumor mask was compared using paired t test for statistical significance (p < 0.05) and Pearson correlation coefficient (PCC). Automated SLIC-S and FCM showed quantitatively and qualitatively superior segmentation with DC: ~ 79–82%; JI: ~ 67–71%; P: ~ 81–83%; R: ~ 80–86% and PCC = 0.89, 0.88 among all methods. Among semi-automated methods, AC was quantitatively more accurate (DC: ~ 77%; JI: ~ 65%; P: ~ 72%; R: ~ 88%; PCC = 0.85) than OT-RG and GC (DC: ~ 74–75%; JI: ~ 60–61%; P: ~ 67–72%; R: ~ 84–89%; PCC = 0.78, 0.73). Among machine learning algorithms, DNN showed the highest accuracy (DC: ~ 73%; JI: ~ 62%; P: ~ 77%; R: ~ 86%; PCC = 0.79) than LR and L-SVM (DC: ~ 70–71%; JI: ~ 58–63%; P: ~ 73%; R: ~ 74–85%; PCC = 0.69, 0.71). Execution times were instantaneous for SLIC-S, FCM and machine learning methods, while OT-RG, AC and GC took comparable ~ 1–6 s/slice image. Automated SLIC-S, FCM and semi-automated AC methods produced promising tumor segmentation results using DWI of the osteosarcoma dataset.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Geller, D.S., Gorlick, R.: Osteosarcoma: a review of diagnosis, management, and treatment strategies. Clin. Adv. Hematol. Oncol. 8, 705–718 (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  2. Wong, K.-P.: Medical image segmentation: methods and applications in functional imaging. In: Suri, J.S., Wilson, D.L., Laxminarayan, S. (eds.) Handbook of biomedical image analysis: volume II segmentation models part B, pp. 111–182. Springer, Boston (2005)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  3. Norouzi, A., Shafry, M., Rahim, M., et al.: Applications medical image segmentation methods, algorithms, and applications. IETE Tech. Rev. 3, 37–41 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1080/02564602.2014.906861

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Ashton, E.A., Takahashi, C., Berg, M.J., et al.: Accuracy and reproducibility of manual and semiautomated quantification of MS lesions by MRI. J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 17, 300–308 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1002/jmri.10258

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Costa, F.M., Ferreira, E.C., Vianna, E.M.: Diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging for the evaluation of musculoskeletal tumors. Magn. Reson. Imaging Clin. NA 19, 159–180 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mric.2010.10.007

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Raghavan, M.: Conventional modalities and novel, emerging imaging techniques for musculoskeletal tumors. Cancer Control 24, 161–171 (2017)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Frangi, A.F., Egmont-petersen, M., Niessen, W.J., et al.: Bone tumor segmentation from MR perfusion images with neural networks using multi-scale pharmacokinetic features. Image Vis. Comput. 19, 679–690 (2001)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Mandava, R., Wei, B.C., Yeow, L.S.: Spatial multiple criteria fuzzy clustering for image segmentation. In: Second International Conference on Computational Intelligence, pp. 305–310 (2010)

  9. Mandava, R., Alia, O.M., Wei, B.C., et al.: Osteosarcoma segmentation in MRI using dynamic harmony search based clustering. In: International Conference of Soft Computing and Pattern Recognition, pp. 423–429 (2010)

  10. Huang, W., Wen, D., Yan, Y., et al.: Multi-target osteosarcoma MRI recognition with texture context features based on CRF. In: International Joint Conference on Neural Networks (IJCNN), pp. 3978–3983 (2016)

  11. Ma, J., Li, M., Zhao, Y.: Segmentation of multimodality osteosarcoma MRI with vectorial fuzzy-connectedness theory. In: International Conference on Fuzzy Systems and Knowledge Discovery, pp. 1027–1030 (2005)

  12. Zhao, Y., Hong, F., Li, M.: Multimodality MRI information fusion for osteosarcoma segmentation. In: IEEE EMBS Asian-Pacific Conference on Biomedical Engineering, pp. 166–167 (2003)

  13. Chun-xiao, C., Dan, Z., Ning, L., et al.: Osteosarcoma segmentation in MRI based on zernike moment and SVM. Chinese J. Biomed. Eng. 22, 70–78 (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  14. Otsu, N.: A tlreshold selection method from gray-level histograms. IEEE Trans. Syst. MAN Cybern. SMC 9, 62–66 (1979)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Mancas, M., Gosselin, B., Macq, B.: Segmentation using a region growing thresholding. In: Proceedings of SPIE 5672, Image Processing: Algorithms and Systems IV, pp. 388–398 (2006)

  16. Chan, T.F., Vese, L.A.: Active Contours Without Edges. IEEE Trans. Image Process. 10, 266–277 (2001)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Achanta, R., Shaji, A., Smith, K., et al.: SLIC Superpixels. IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell. 34, 2274–2282 (2012)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Selvathi, D., Arulmurgan, A., Alagappan, S.: MRI image segmentation using unsupervised clustering techniques. In: IEEE Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Computational Intelligence and Multimedia Applications (ICCIMA’05), pp. 5–10 (2005)

  19. Boykov, Y., Funka-lea, G.: Graph cuts and efficient N-D image segmentation. Int. J. Comput. Vis. 70, 109–131 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11263-006-7934-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Cox, D.R.: The regression analysis of binary sequences. J. R. Stat. Soc. 20, 215–242 (2017)

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  21. Cortes, C., Vapnik, V.: Support-vector networks. Mach. Leaming 20, 273–297 (1995)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  22. Du, X., Li, Y., Yao, D.: A support vector machine based algorithm for magnetic resonance image segmentation. In: 4th International Conference on Natural Computation A, pp. 49–53 (2008)

  23. Havaei, M., Davy, A., Warde-farley, D., et al.: Brain tumor segmentation with deep neural networks. Med. Image Anal. 35, 18–31 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.media.2016.05.004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Sredhar, K., Panlal, B.: Enhancement of images using morphological transformations. Int. J. Comput. Sci. Inf. Technol. 4, 33–50 (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  25. Haralick, R.M.: Statistical and structural approaches to texture. Proc. IEEE 67, 786–804 (1979)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Galloway, M.M.: Texture analysis using grey-level run lengths. Comput. Graph Image Process 4, 172–179 (1975)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Mucciardi, A.N., Gose, E.E.: Comparison of seven techniques for choosing subsets of pattern recognition properties. IEEE Trans. Comput. C 20, 1023–1031 (1971)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Ferlay, J., Soerjomataram, I., Dikshit, R., et al.: Cancer incidence and mortality worldwide: sources, methods and major patterns in GLOBOCAN 2012. Int. J. Cancer 386, E359–E386 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1002/ijc.29210

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Chen, C., Ding, S., Li, N., Wu, S.: Osteosarcoma segmentation in CT images based on hybrid relative fuzzy connectedness. In: 5th International Conference on BioMedical Engineering and Informatics, pp: 324–328. IEEE (2012)

  30. Zhang, R., Huang, L., Xia, W., et al.: Computerized medical imaging and graphics multiple supervised residual network for osteosarcoma segmentation in CT images. Comput. Med. Imaging Graph 63, 1–8 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compmedimag.2018.01.006

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Liu, X., Haider, M.A., Yetik, I.S.: Unsupervised 3D prostate segmentation based on diffusion-weighted imaging MRI using active contour models with a shape prior. J. Electr. Comput. Eng. 2011, 1–2 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1155/2011/410912

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  32. Zhang, J., Baig, S., Wong, A., Haider, M.A.: Segmentation of prostate in diffusion MR images via clustering. Image Anal. Recognit. 10317, 471–478 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-59876-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Saad, N.M., Muda, S., Mokji, M.: Segmentation of brain lesions in diffusion- weighted MRI using thresholding technique. In: 2011 IEEE International Conference on Signal and Image Processing Applications (ICSIPA), pp. 249–254. IEEE (2011)

  34. Schakel, T., Peltenburg, B., Dankbaar, J., et al.: Evaluation of diffusion weighted imaging for tumor delineation in head- and- neck radiotherapy by comparison with automatically segmented 18F- fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography. Phys. Imaging Radiat. Oncol. 5, 13–18 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.phro.2017.12.004

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Authors would like to thank the Ministry of Human Resource Development, Government of India for providing the research fellowship funds to E.B.K. required for this study. Authors would also like to thank and acknowledge the valuable input of the intern team, Abhimanyu Sahai, Rishabh Gupta, Akshay Gupta, Kabir Chhbra and Sneha Patil in data processing and various stages of implementation of algorithms.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Centre for Biomedical Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Delhi, Hauz Khas, New Delhi, 110016, India

    Esha Baidya Kayal & Amit Mehndiratta

  2. Department of Radiology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India

    Devasenathipathy Kandasamy & Raju Sharma

  3. Department of Medical Oncology, Dr. B. R. Ambedkar Institute-Rotary Cancer Hospital (IRCH), All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India

    Sameer Bakhshi

  4. Department of Biomedical Engineering, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India

    Amit Mehndiratta

Authors
  1. Esha Baidya Kayal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Devasenathipathy Kandasamy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Raju Sharma
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Sameer Bakhshi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Amit Mehndiratta
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Amit Mehndiratta.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors have no relevant conflicts of interest to disclose regarding this study.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (PDF 94 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Baidya Kayal, E., Kandasamy, D., Sharma, R. et al. Segmentation of osteosarcoma tumor using diffusion weighted MRI: a comparative study using nine segmentation algorithms. SIViP 14, 727–735 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11760-019-01599-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11760-019-01599-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation