Key result
CNNs predict CTA cross-sectional planes faster and more reproducibly than experts or centerline methods.
Why the study?
Manual cross-sectional measuring plane orientation in chronic aortic dissection surveillance is labor-intensive, and centerline-based approaches are unreliable due to asymmetric flow channels, contrast differences, and mural thrombus.
Do convolutional neural network-based approaches improve the speed and reproducibility of cross-sectional view selection in CT angiography of chronic aortic dissections compared to manual or centerline methods?
Do convolutional neural network-based approaches improve the speed and reproducibility of cross-sectional view selection in CT angiography of chronic aortic dissections compared to manual or centerline methods?
Automated CNN-based approaches can reliably and rapidly predict cross-sectional measuring planes in CTA of chronic aortic dissections, matching expert performance.
May expedite CTA analysis in aortic dissection; leaves open prospective validation before clinical use.
Surveillance imaging of patients with chronic aortic diseases, such as aneurysms and dissections, relies on obtaining and comparing cross-sectional diameter measurements along the aorta at predefined aortic landmarks, over time. The orientation of the cross-sectional measuring planes at each landmark is currently defined manually by highly trained operators. Centerline-based approaches are unreliable in patients with chronic aortic dissection, because of the asymmetric flow channels, differences in contrast opacification, and presence of mural thrombus, making centerline computations or measurements difficult to generate and reproduce. In this work, we present three alternative approaches - INS, MCDS, MCDbS - based on convolutional neural networks and uncertainty quantification methods to predict the orientation (ϕ,θ) of such cross-sectional planes. For the monitoring of chronic aortic dissections, we show how a dataset of 162 CTA volumes with overall 3273 imperfect manual annotations routinely collected in a clinic can be efficiently used to accomplish this task, despite the presence of non-negligible interoperator variabilities in terms of mean absolute error (MAE) and 95% limits of agreement (LOA). We show how, despite the large limits of agreement in the training data, the trained model provides faster and more reproducible results than either an expert user or a centerline method. The remaining disagreement lies within the variability produced by three independent expert annotators and matches the current state of the art, providing a similar error, but in a fraction of the time.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Pepe et al. (2023) studied Chronic aortic dissections (n=162). Convolutional neural networks (INS, MCDS, MCDbS) vs. Expert user or centerline method was evaluated on Orientation of cross-sectional planes. Convolutional neural networks provided faster and more reproducible cross-sectional plane orientation predictions than expert users or centerline methods using 162 CTA volumes.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: