Automated slice classification is clinically relevant since it can be incorporated into medical image segmentation workflows as a preprocessing step that would flag slices with a higher probability of containing tumors, thereby directing physicians' attention to the important slices. In this work, we train a ResNet-18 network to classify axial slices of lymphoma PET/CT images (collected from two institutions) depending on whether the slice intercepted a tumor (positive slice) in the 3D image or if the slice did not (negative slice). Various instances of the network were trained on 2D axial datasets created in different ways: (i) slice-level split and (ii) patient-level split; inputs of different types were used: (i) only PET slices and (ii) concatenated PET and CT slices; and different training strategies were employed: (i) center-aware (CAW) and (ii) center-agnostic (CAG). Model performances were compared using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) and the area under the precision-recall curve (AUPRC), and various binary classification metrics. We observe and describe a performance overestimation in the case of slice-level split as compared to the patient-level split training. The model trained using patient-level split data with the network input containing only PET slices in the CAG training regime was the best performing/generalizing model on a majority of metrics. Our models were additionally more closely compared using the sensitivity metric on the positive slices from their respective test sets.

Accurate detection and segmentation of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) from PET images has important implications for estimation of total metabolic tumor volume, radiomics analysis, surgical intervention and radiotherapy. Manual segmentation of tumors in whole-body PET images is time-consuming, labor-intensive and operator-dependent. In this work, we develop and validate a fast and efficient three-step cascaded deep learning model for automated detection and segmentation of DLBCL tumors from PET images. As compared to a single end-to-end network for segmentation of tumors in whole-body PET images, our three-step model is more effective (improves 3D Dice score from 58.9% to 78.1%) since each of its specialized modules, namely the slice classifier, the tumor detector and the tumor segmentor, can be trained independently to a high degree of skill to carry out a specific task, rather than a single network with suboptimal performance on overall segmentation.

This study performs comprehensive evaluation of four neural network architectures (UNet, SegResNet, DynUNet, and SwinUNETR) for lymphoma lesion segmentation from PET/CT images. These networks were trained, validated, and tested on a diverse, multi-institutional dataset of 611 cases. Internal testing (88 cases; total metabolic tumor volume (TMTV) range [0.52, 2300] ml) showed SegResNet as the top performer with a median Dice similarity coefficient (DSC) of 0.76 and median false positive volume (FPV) of 4.55 ml; all networks had a median false negative volume (FNV) of 0 ml. On the unseen external test set (145 cases with TMTV range: [0.10, 2480] ml), SegResNet achieved the best median DSC of 0.68 and FPV of 21.46 ml, while UNet had the best FNV of 0.41 ml. We assessed reproducibility of six lesion measures, calculated their prediction errors, and examined DSC performance in relation to these lesion measures, offering insights into segmentation accuracy and clinical relevance. Additionally, we introduced three lesion detection criteria, addressing the clinical need for identifying lesions, counting them, and segmenting based on metabolic characteristics. We also performed expert intra-observer variability analysis revealing the challenges in segmenting ``easy'' vs. ``hard'' cases, to assist in the development of more resilient segmentation algorithms. Finally, we performed inter-observer agreement assessment underscoring the importance of a standardized ground truth segmentation protocol involving multiple expert annotators. Code is available at: https://github.com/microsoft/lymphoma-segmentation-dnn

Automated segmentation of cancerous lesions in PET/CT images is a vital initial task for quantitative analysis. However, it is often challenging to train deep learning-based segmentation methods to high degree of accuracy due to the diversity of lesions in terms of their shapes, sizes, and radiotracer uptake levels. These lesions can be found in various parts of the body, often close to healthy organs that also show significant uptake. Consequently, developing a comprehensive PET/CT lesion segmentation model is a demanding endeavor for routine quantitative image analysis. In this work, we train a 3D Residual UNet using Generalized Dice Focal Loss function on the AutoPET challenge 2023 training dataset. We develop our models in a 5-fold cross-validation setting and ensemble the five models via average and weighted-average ensembling. On the preliminary test phase, the average ensemble achieved a Dice similarity coefficient (DSC), false-positive volume (FPV) and false negative volume (FNV) of 0.5417, 0.8261 ml, and 0.2538 ml, respectively, while the weighted-average ensemble achieved 0.5417, 0.8186 ml, and 0.2538 ml, respectively.

The number of international benchmarking competitions is steadily increasing in various fields of machine learning (ML) research and practice. So far, however, little is known about the common practice as well as bottlenecks faced by the community in tackling the research questions posed. To shed light on the status quo of algorithm development in the specific field of biomedical imaging analysis, we designed an international survey that was issued to all participants of challenges conducted in conjunction with the IEEE ISBI 2021 and MICCAI 2021 conferences (80 competitions in total). The survey covered participants' expertise and working environments, their chosen strategies, as well as algorithm characteristics. A median of 72% challenge participants took part in the survey. According to our results, knowledge exchange was the primary incentive (70%) for participation, while the reception of prize money played only a minor role (16%). While a median of 80 working hours was spent on method development, a large portion of participants stated that they did not have enough time for method development (32%). 25% perceived the infrastructure to be a bottleneck. Overall, 94% of all solutions were deep learning-based. Of these, 84% were based on standard architectures. 43% of the respondents reported that the data samples (e.g., images) were too large to be processed at once. This was most commonly addressed by patch-based training (69%), downsampling (37%), and solving 3D analysis tasks as a series of 2D tasks. K-fold cross-validation on the training set was performed by only 37% of the participants and only 50% of the participants performed ensembling based on multiple identical models (61%) or heterogeneous models (39%). 48% of the respondents applied postprocessing steps.

Arman Rahmim Departments of Radiology and Physics, University of British Columbia Tyler J. Bradshaw Department of Radiology, University of Wisconsin - Madison Irène Buvat Institut Curie, Université PSL, Inserm, Université Paris-Saclay, Orsay, France Joyita Dutta Department of Biomedical Engineering, University of Massachusetts Amherst Abhinav K. Jha Department of Biomedical Engineering and Mallinckrodt Institute of Radiology, Washington University in St. Louis Paul E. Kinahan Department of Radiology, University of Washington Quanzheng Li Department of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School Chi Liu Department of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, Yale University Melissa D. McCradden Department of Bioethics, The Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto Babak Saboury Department of Radiology and Imaging Sciences, Clinical Center, National Institutes of Health Eliot Siegel Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, University of Maryland Medical Center, USA John J. Sunderland Departments of Radiology and Physics, University of Iowa Richard L. Wahl Mallinckrodt Institute of Radiology, Washington University in St. Louis Abstract The SNMMI Artificial Intelligence (SNMMI-AI) Summit, organized by the SNMMI AI Task Force, took place in Bethesda, MD on March 21-22, 2022. It brought together various community members and stakeholders from academia, healthcare, industry, patient representatives, and government (NIH, FDA), and considered various key themes to envision and facilitate a bright future for routine, trustworthy use of AI in nuclear medicine. In what follows, essential issues, challenges, controversies and findings emphasized in the meeting are summarized. Introduction The SNMMI Artificial Intelligence (SNMMI-AI) Summit, organized by the SNMMI AI Task Force, took place in Bethesda, MD on March 21-22, 2022. As summarized in Figure 1, various community members and stakeholders from academia, healthcare, industry, patient representatives, and government (NIH, FDA) participated in the AI Summit; and the meeting included rich presentations, roundtable discussion and interactions on key themes to envision and facilitate a bright future for routine, trustworthy use of AI in nuclear medicine.

The field of artificial intelligence (AI), regarded as one of the most enigmatic areas of science, has witnessed exponential growth in the past decade including a remarkably wide array of applications, having already impacted our everyday lives. Advances in computing power and the design of sophisticated AI algorithms have enabled computers to outperform humans in a variety of tasks, especially in the areas of computer vision and speech recognition. Yet, AI's path has never been smooth, having essentially fallen apart twice in its lifetime ('winters' of AI), both after periods of popular success ('summers' of AI). We provide a brief rundown of AI's evolution over the course of decades, highlighting its crucial moments and major turning points from inception to the present. In doing so, we attempt to learn, anticipate the future, and discuss what steps may be taken to prevent another 'winter'.