Renal structures CECT segmentation
Renal structures CECT segmentation
2025-11-22https://doi.org/10.1148/atlas.1763846006198
51
Overview
Schema Version
https://atlas.rsna.org/schemas/2025-11/model.json
Name
Renal structures CECT segmentation
Link
https://doi.org/10.47093/2218-7332.2023.14.1.39-49
Indexing
Keywords: Neural Network, Kidney Neoplasms, Computed Tomography, 3D Modeling, Image Segmentation, Renal Arteries, Renal Veins, Ureters, Kidney Parenchyma
Content: CT, GU, OI, BQ
Author(s)
Ivan M. Chernenkiy
Michail M. Chernenkiy
Dmitry N. Fiev
Evgeny S. Sirota
Organization(s)
Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University (Sechenov University)
Contact
chernenkiy_i_m@stafF.sechenov.ru
Funding
The study was not sponsored (own resources).
Ethical review
The study was approved by the Local Ethics Committee of Sechenov University.
Comments
The study was not sponsored (own resources). Authors express their gratitude to the Institute of Computer Science and Mathematical Modeling of Sechenov University for access to the computing cluster.
Date
Published: 2023-03-30
Model
Architecture
SegResNet architecture, a type of UNet convolutional neural network.
Availability
https://github.com/blacky-i/nephro-segmentation
Clinical benefit
Enables 3D surgical planning, preoperative planning, intraoperative navigation, and determination of optimal surgical access for kidney neoplasms.
Clinical workflow phase
Pre-operative planning
Degree of automation
Automated 3D model construction.
Indications for use
Segmentation of kidney neoplasms and adjacent renal structures for 3D modeling in surgical planning.
Input
DICOM data from contrast-enhanced multispiral computed tomography, including arterial, venous, and excretory phases.
Instructions
Pre-processing included affine registration, median filter, and non-local means filter. Augmentation methods used were Zoom (0.9-1.1 scale, 0.3 probability), Rotate 90 (0.3 probability), Flip (0.3 probability per axis), Adjust Contrast (0.5-4.5 scale, 0.3 probability), and Histogram Shift (0.3 probability). Dice coefficient was used as the loss function. Novograd optimizer was used with a batch size of 4 and an input window of [96, 96, 96] voxels.
Limitations
Difficulty in determining kidney neoplasms due to small size and false positives. The model may identify formations outside the organ. Limited by a small dataset size (41 observations) for training.
Output
Description: Segmentation masks for arteries, veins, kidney parenchyma, kidney neoplasms, ureters, and background. 3D models of kidney neoplasms and adjacent structures.
Recommendation
Increase sample size to 300 observations. Implement post-processing operations to improve model quality.
Reproducibility
Code for reproducing results is available on GitHub.
Use
Intended: Image segmentation, 3D modeling, Surgical planning, Intraoperative navigation
User
Intended: Urologist, Radiologist, Surgeon, Researcher, IT specialist