PT  - JOURNAL ARTICLE
AU  - Josef A Buchner
AU  - Jan C Peeken
AU  - Lucas Etzel
AU  - Ivan Ezhov
AU  - Michael Mayinger
AU  - Sebastian M Christ
AU  - Thomas B Brunner
AU  - Andrea Wittig
AU  - Björn Menze
AU  - Claus Zimmer
AU  - Bernhard Meyer
AU  - Matthias Guckenberger
AU  - Nicolaus Andratschke
AU  - Rami A El Shafie
AU  - Jürgen Debus
AU  - Susanne Rogers
AU  - Oliver Riesterer
AU  - Katrin Schulze
AU  - Horst J Feldmann
AU  - Oliver Blanck
AU  - Constantinos Zamboglou
AU  - Konstantinos Ferentinos
AU  - Angelika Bilger
AU  - Anca L Grosu
AU  - Robert Wolff
AU  - Jan S Kirschke
AU  - Kerstin A Eitz
AU  - Stephanie E Combs
AU  - Denise Bernhardt
AU  - Daniel Rückert
AU  - Marie Piraud
AU  - Benedikt Wiestler
AU  - Florian Kofler
TI  - Identifying core MRI sequences for reliable automatic brain metastasis segmentation
AID  - 10.1101/2023.05.02.23289342
DP  - 2023 Jan 01
TA  - medRxiv
PG  - 2023.05.02.23289342
4099  - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/05/02/2023.05.02.23289342.short
4100  - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/05/02/2023.05.02.23289342.full
AB  - Background Many automatic approaches to brain tumor segmentation employ multiple magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) sequences. The goal of this project was to compare different combinations of input sequences to determine which MRI sequences are needed for effective automated brain metastasis (BM) segmentation.Methods We analyzed preoperative imaging (T1-weighted sequence ± contrast-enhancement (T1/T1-CE), T2-weighted sequence (T2), and T2 fluid-attenuated inversion recovery (T2-FLAIR) sequence) from 333 patients with BMs from six centers. A baseline 3D U-Net with all four sequences and six U-Nets with plausible sequence combinations (T1-CE, T1, T2-FLAIR, T1-CE+T2-FLAIR, T1-CE+T1+T2-FLAIR, T1-CE+T1) were trained on 239 patients from two centers and subsequently tested on an external cohort of 94 patients from four centers.Results The model based on T1-CE alone achieved the best segmentation performance for BM segmentation with a median Dice similarity coefficient (DSC) of 0.96. Models trained without T1-CE performed worse (T1-only: DSC = 0.70 and T2-FLAIR-only: DSC = 0.72). For edema segmentation, models that included both T1-CE and T2-FLAIR performed best (DSC = 0.93), while the remaining four models without simultaneous inclusion of these both sequences reached a median DSC of 0.81-0.89.Conclusions A T1-CE-only protocol suffices for the segmentation of BMs. The combination of T1-CE and T2-FLAIR is important for edema segmentation. Missing either T1-CE or T2-FLAIR decreases performance. These findings may improve imaging routines by omitting unnecessary sequences, thus allowing for faster procedures in daily clinical practice while enabling optimal neural network-based target definitions.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementThis work was funded by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG, German Research Foundation - PE 3303/1-1 (JCP), WI 4936/4-1 (BW)).Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:The ethics committee of Technical University of Munich gave ethical approval for this work (119/19 S-SR; 466/16 S)I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.YesThe datasets generated and analyzed during the current study are not available.