Impact of retraining a deep learning algorithm for improving guideline-compliant aortic diameter measurements on non-gated chest CT.

Purpose/objective: Reliable detection of thoracic aortic dilatation (TAD) is mandatory in clinical routine. For ECG-gated CT angiography, automated deep learning (DL) algorithms are established for diameter measurements according to current guidelines. For non-ECG gated CT (contrast enhanced (CE) and non-CE), however, only a few reports are available. In these reports, classification as TAD is frequently unreliable with variable result quality depending on anatomic location with the aortic root presenting with the worst results. Therefore, this study aimed to explore the impact of re-training on a previously evaluated DL tool for aortic measurements in a cohort of non-ECG gated exams.

Methods & Materials: A cohort of 995 patients (68 ± 12 years) with CE (n = 392) and non-CE (n = 603) chest CT exams was selected which were classified as TAD by the initial DL tool. The re-trained version featured improved robustness of centerline fitting and cross-sectional plane placement. All cases were processed by the re-trained DL tool version. DL results were evaluated by a radiologist regarding plane placement and diameter measurements. Measurements were classified as correctly measured diameters at each location whereas false measurements consisted of over-/under-estimation of diameters.

Results: We evaluated 8948 measurements in 995 exams. The re-trained version performed 8539/8948 (95.5%) of diameter measurements correctly. 3765/8948 (42.1%) of measurements were correct in both versions, initial and re-trained DL tool (best: distal arch 655/995 (66%), worst: Aortic sinus (AS) 221/995 (22%)). In contrast, 4456/8948 (49.8%) measurements were correctly measured only by the re-trained version, in particular at the aortic root (AS: 564/995 (57%), sinotubular junction: 697/995 (70%)). In addition, the re-trained version performed 318 (3.6%) measurements which were not available previously. A total of 228 (2.5%) cases showed false measurements because of tilted planes and 181 (2.0%) over-/under-segmentations with a focus at AS (n = 137 (14%) and n = 73 (7%), respectively).

Conclusion: Re-training of the DL tool improved diameter assessment, resulting in a total of 95.5% correct measurements. Our data suggests that the re-trained DL tool can be applied even in non-ECG-gated chest CT including both, CE and non-CE exams.