4.7 Article

Joint Tumor Segmentation in PET-CT Images Using Co-Clustering and Fusion Based on Belief Functions

期刊

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON IMAGE PROCESSING
卷 28, 期 2, 页码 755-766

出版社

IEEE-INST ELECTRICAL ELECTRONICS ENGINEERS INC
DOI: 10.1109/TIP.2018.2872908

关键词

Tumor co-segmentation; co-clustering; context information; information fusion; adaptive distance metric; spatial regularization; belief functions; PET-CT

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Precise delineation of target tumor is a key factor to ensure the effectiveness of radiation therapy. While hybrid positron emission tomography-computed tomography (PET-CT) has become a standard imaging tool in the practice of radiation oncology, many existing automatic/semi-automatic methods still perform tumor segmentation on mono-modal images. In this paper, a co-clustering algorithm is proposed to concurrently segment 3D tumors in PET-CT images, considering that the two complementary imaging modalities can combine functional and anatomical information to improve segmentation performance. The theory of belief functions is adopted in the proposed method to model, fuse, and reason with uncertain and imprecise knowledge from noisy and blurry PET-CT images. To ensure reliable segmentation for each modality, the distance metric for the quantification of clustering distortions and spatial smoothness is iteratively adapted during the clustering procedure. On the other hand, to encourage consistent segmentation between different modalities, a specific context term is proposed in the clustering objective function. Moreover, during the iterative optimization process, clustering results for the two distinct modalities are further adjusted via a belief-functions-based information fusion strategy. The proposed method has been evaluated on a data set consisting of 21 paired PET-CT images for non-small cell lung cancer patients. The quantitative and qualitative evaluations show that our proposed method performs well compared with the state-of-the-art methods.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据