Hepatic and portal vein segmentation with dual‐stream deep neural network

Abstract

AbstractBackgroundLiver lesions mainly occur inside the liver parenchyma, which are difficult to locate and have complicated relationships with essential vessels. Thus, preoperative planning is crucial for the resection of liver lesions. Accurate segmentation of the hepatic and portal veins (PVs) on computed tomography (CT) images is of great importance for preoperative planning. However, manually labeling the mask of vessels is laborious and time‐consuming, and the labeling results of different clinicians are prone to inconsistencies. Hence, developing an automatic segmentation algorithm for hepatic and PVs on CT images has attracted the attention of researchers. Unfortunately, existing deep learning based automatic segmentation methods are prone to misclassifying peripheral vessels into wrong categories.PurposeThis study aims to provide a fully automatic and robust semantic segmentation algorithm for hepatic and PVs, guiding subsequent preoperative planning. In addition, to address the deficiency of the public dataset for hepatic and PV segmentation, we revise the annotations of the Medical Segmentation Decathlon (MSD) hepatic vessel segmentation dataset and add the masks of the hepatic veins (HVs) and PVs.MethodsWe proposed a structure with a dual‐stream encoder combining convolution and Transformer block, named Dual‐stream Hepatic Portal Vein segmentation Network, to extract local features and long‐distance spatial information, thereby extracting anatomical information of hepatic and portal vein, avoiding misdivisions of adjacent peripheral vessels. Besides, a multi‐scale feature fusion block based on dilated convolution is proposed to extract multi‐scale features on expanded perception fields for local features, and a multi‐level fusing attention module is introduced for efficient context information extraction. Paired t‐test is conducted to evaluate the significant difference in dice between the proposed methods and the comparing methods.ResultsTwo datasets are constructed from the original MSD dataset. For each dataset, 50 cases are randomly selected for model evaluation in the scheme of 5‐fold cross‐validation. The results show that our method outperforms the state‐of‐the‐art Convolutional Neural Network‐based and transformer‐based methods. Specifically, for the first dataset, our model reaches 0.815, 0.830, and 0.807 at overall dice, precision, and sensitivity. The dice of the hepatic and PVs are 0.835 and 0.796, which also exceed the numeric result of the comparing methods. Almost all the p‐values of paired t‐tests on the proposed approach and comparing approaches are smaller than 0.05. On the second dataset, the proposed algorithm achieves 0.749, 0.762, 0.726, 0.835, and 0.796 for overall dice, precision, sensitivity, dice for HV, and dice for PV, among which the first four numeric results exceed comparing methods.ConclusionsThe proposed method is effective in solving the problem of misclassifying interlaced peripheral veins for the HV and PV segmentation task and outperforming the comparing methods on the relabeled dataset.