PURPOSE Accurate identification and segmentation of abdominal lymph nodes on computed tomography (CT) is crucial for cancer staging and treatment planning but remains a challenging and time-consuming radiologic task. We developed and validated ConLymphNet, a deep learning–based approach for automated abdominal lymph node segmentation using vertebral landmarks as anatomic reference points to standardize the region of interest. MATERIALS AND METHODS We implemented a novel preprocessing pipeline incorporating vertebral landmark-based region selection followed by a 3D nnUNet segmentation model. The model was trained on 481 contrast-enhanced CT scans from patients with gallbladder cancer (GBC) and validated on external data sets including GBC (n = 54), public lymph node (n = 81), and multicancer data sets (n = 606). Performance was compared with three radiologists of varying experience levels. Interobserver agreement among radiologists and the incremental value of artificial intelligence (AI)-assisted reading were also assessed. To support reproducibility and future research, we also contribute 45 expert-verified lymph node segmentations for cases from public multicancer data sets. RESULTS ConLymphNet achieved mean Dice coefficients of 0.696 ± 0.179, 0.631 ± 0.187, and 0.639 ± 0.176 and low false-positive rates of 0.78 ± 0.35, 0.81 ± 0.33, 0.93 ± 0.47/volume on internal cross-validation, external GBC, and public lymph node data sets, respectively. Performance varied by lymph node location ( P = .0080) and size ( P = .0444), with larger nodes yielding better results. The model's detection rate (89.6%) was comparable with experienced residents (89.2%) but with reduced processing time (28.7 ± 12.4s v 165.3 ± 47.8 s). AI assistance improved radiologists' performance significantly, particularly for less experienced readers (detection rate +20.2%, segmentation accuracy +13.0%, P < .001), while reducing false positives by 33.3%. CONCLUSION ConLymphNet demonstrates reasonable performance across diverse cancer types and imaging protocols, offering segmentation accuracy comparable with radiologists with substantially faster processing times.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Gupta et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: