Prostate MRI image segmentation has been an area of intense research due to the increased use of MRI as a modality for the clinical workup of prostate cancer. Segmentation is useful for various tasks, e.g. to accurately localize prostate boundaries for radiotherapy or to initialize multi-modal registration algorithms. In the past, it has been difficult for research groups to evaluate prostate segmentation algorithms on multi-center, multi-vendor and multi-protocol data. Especially because we are dealing with MR images, image appearance, resolution and the presence of artifacts are affected by differences in scanners and/or protocols, which in turn can have a large influence on algorithm accuracy. The Prostate MR Image Segmentation (PROMISE12) challenge was setup to allow a fair and meaningful comparison of segmentation methods on the basis of performance and robustness. In this work we will discuss the initial results of the online PROMISE12 challenge, and the results obtained in the live challenge workshop hosted by the MICCAI2012 conference. In the challenge, 100 prostate MR cases from 4 different centers were included, with differences in scanner manufacturer, field strength and protocol. A total of 11 teams from academic research groups and industry participated. Algorithms showed a wide variety in methods and implementation, including active appearance models, atlas registration and level sets. Evaluation was performed using boundary and volume based metrics which were combined into a single score relating the metrics to human expert performance. The winners of the challenge where the algorithms by teams Imorphics and ScrAutoProstate, with scores of 85.72 and 84.29 overall. Both algorithms where significantly better than all other algorithms in the challenge (p < 0.05) and had an efficient implementation with a run time of 8 minutes and 3 second per case respectively. Overall, active appearance model based approaches seemed to outperform other approaches like multi-atlas registration, both on accuracy and computation time. Although average algorithm performance was good to excellent and the Imorphics algorithm outperformed the second observer on average, we showed that algorithm combination might lead to further improvement, indicating that optimal performance for prostate segmentation is not yet obtained. All results are available online at http://promise12.grand-challenge.org/.

Prostate segmentation is a challenging task, and the challenges significantly differ from one imaging modality to another. Low contrast, speckle, micro-calcifications and imaging artifacts like shadow poses serious challenges to accurate prostate segmentation in transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) images. However in magnetic resonance (MR) images, superior soft tissue contrast highlights large variability in shape, size and texture information inside the prostate. In contrast poor soft tissue contrast between prostate and surrounding tissues in computed tomography (CT) images pose a challenge in accurate prostate segmentation. This article reviews the methods developed for prostate gland segmentation TRUS, MR and CT images, the three primary imaging modalities that aids prostate cancer diagnosis and treatment. The objective of this work is to study the key similarities and differences among the different methods, highlighting their strengths and weaknesses in order to assist in the choice of an appropriate segmentation methodology. We define a new taxonomy for prostate segmentation strategies that allows first to group the algorithms and then to point out the main advantages and drawbacks of each strategy. We provide a comprehensive description of the existing methods in all TRUS, MR and CT modalities, highlighting their key-points and features. Finally, a discussion on choosing the most appropriate segmentation strategy for a given imaging modality is provided. A quantitative comparison of the results as reported in literature is also presented.

Understanding structure-function relationships in the brain after stroke is reliant not only on the accurate anatomical delineation of the focal ischemic lesion, but also on previous infarcts, remote changes and the presence of white matter hyperintensities. The robust definition of primary stroke boundaries and secondary brain lesions will have significant impact on investigation of brain-behavior relationships and lesion volume correlations with clinical measures after stroke. Here we present an automated approach to identify chronic ischemic infarcts in addition to other white matter pathologies, that may be used to aid the development of post-stroke management strategies. Our approach uses Bayesian-Markov Random Field (MRF) classification to segment probable lesion volumes present on fluid attenuated inversion recovery (FLAIR) MRI. Thereafter, a random forest classification of the information from multimodal (T1-weighted, T2-weighted, FLAIR, and apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC)) MRI images and other context-aware features (within the probable lesion areas) was used to extract areas with high likelihood of being classified as lesions. The final segmentation of the lesion was obtained by thresholding the random forest probabilistic maps. The accuracy of the automated lesion delineation method was assessed in a total of 36 patients (24 male, 12 female, mean age: 64.57±14.23yrs) at 3months after stroke onset and compared with manually segmented lesion volumes by an expert. Accuracy assessment of the automated lesion identification method was performed using the commonly used evaluation metrics. The mean sensitivity of segmentation was measured to be 0.53±0.13 with a mean positive predictive value of 0.75±0.18. The mean lesion volume difference was observed to be 32.32%±21.643% with a high Pearson's correlation of r=0.76 (p<0.0001). The lesion overlap accuracy was measured in terms of Dice similarity coefficient with a mean of 0.60±0.12, while the contour accuracy was observed with a mean surface distance of 3.06mm±3.17mm. The results signify that our method was successful in identifying most of the lesion areas in FLAIR with a low false positive rate.