By Topic

Adaptively Learning Local Shape Statistics for Prostate Segmentation in Ultrasound

Sign In

Cookies must be enabled to login.After enabling cookies , please use refresh or reload or ctrl+f5 on the browser for the login options.

Formats Non-Member Member
$31 $13
Learn how you can qualify for the best price for this item!
Become an IEEE Member or Subscribe to
IEEE Xplore for exclusive pricing!
close button

puzzle piece

IEEE membership options for an individual and IEEE Xplore subscriptions for an organization offer the most affordable access to essential journal articles, conference papers, standards, eBooks, and eLearning courses.

Learn more about:

IEEE membership

IEEE Xplore subscriptions

4 Author(s)
Pingkun Yan ; Philips Res. North America, Briarcliff Manor, NY, USA ; Sheng Xu ; Turkbey, Baris ; Kruecker, J.

Automatic segmentation of the prostate from 2-D transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) is a highly desired tool in many clinical applications. However, it is a very challenging task, especially for segmenting the base and apex of the prostate due to the large shape variations in those areas compared to the midgland, which leads many existing segmentation methods to fail. To address the problem, this paper presents a novel TRUS video segmentation algorithm using both global population-based and patient-specific local shape statistics as shape constraint. By adaptively learning shape statistics in a local neighborhood during the segmentation process, the algorithm can effectively capture the patient-specific shape statistics and quickly adapt to the local shape changes in the base and apex areas. The learned shape statistics is then used as the shape constraint in a deformable model for TRUS video segmentation. The proposed method can robustly segment the entire gland of the prostate with significantly improved performance in the base and apex regions, compared to other previously reported methods. Our method was evaluated using 19 video sequences obtained from different patients and the average mean absolute distance error was 1.65 0.47 mm.

Published in:

Biomedical Engineering, IEEE Transactions on  (Volume:58 ,  Issue: 3 )