PROCEEDINGS OF BIOSIGNAL 2010, JULY 14-16, 2010, BERLIN, GERMANY

1

Pituitary Adenoma Segmentation
J. Egger, M. H. A. Bauer, D. Kuhnt, B. Freisleben and Ch. Nimsky

Abstract—Sellar tumors are approximately 10-15% among all
intracranial neoplasms. The most common sellar lesion is the
pituitary adenoma. Manual segmentation is a time-consuming
process that can be shortened by using adequate algorithms. In
this contribution, we present a segmentation method for pituitary
adenoma. The method is based on an algorithm we developed
recently in previous work where the novel segmentation scheme
was successfully used for segmentation of glioblastoma
multiforme and provided an average Dice Similarity Coefficient
(DSC) of 77%. This scheme is used for automatic adenoma
segmentation. In our experimental evaluation, neurosurgeons
with strong experiences in the treatment of pituitary adenoma
performed manual slice-by-slice segmentation of 10 magnetic
resonance imaging (MRI) cases. Afterwards, the segmentations
were compared with the segmentation results of the proposed
method via the DSC. The average DSC for all data sets was
77.49%±4.52%. Compared with a manual segmentation that
took, on the average, 3.91±0.54 minutes, the overall segmentation
in our implementation required less than 4 seconds.
Index Terms—pituitary adenoma, segmentation, spherical
graph, MRI, mincut

I. INTRODUCTION
Approximately 10-15% of all intracranial neoplasms are
sellar tumors. The most common sellar lesion is the pituitary
adenoma [1]. The lesions can be classified according to size or
hormone-secretion (hormone-active and horme-inactive).
Microadenomas are less than 1 cm in diameter, whereas
macroadenomas measure more than 1 cm. The rare giantadenomas have more than 4 cm in diametric size. Secreted
hormones can be cortisol (cushing's disease), human growthhormone (hGH; acromegaly), follicle-stimulating hormone
(FSH), luteinising hormone (LH), thyroid-stimulating hormone
(TSH), prolactine or a combination of these. Only for the
prolactine-expressing tumors, a pharmacological treatment is
the initial treatment of choice in form of dopamine-agonists.
Treatment is most commonly followed by a decrease of
prolactine-levels and tumor volume. For acromegaly and
cushing's disease, surgery remains the first-line treatment,
although somatostatin receptor analogues or combined
dopamine/somatostatin receptor analogues are a useful secondline therapeutical option for hGH-expressing tumors. Current
medical therapies for Cushing's disease primarily focus on
adrenal blockade of cortisol production, although pasireotide
J.E., M.H.A.B., D.K., Ch.N. are with the Department of Neurosurgery,
University of Marburg, Marburg, Germany e-mail: egger@med.unimarburg.de
J.E., M.H.A.B., B.F. are with the Department of Mathematics and
Computer Science, University of Marburg, Marburg, Germany

and cabergoline show promise as pituitary-directed medical
therapy for Cushing's disease [2].
Thus, not only for the most hormone-active, but also for
homone-inactive macroadenomas with mass-effect, surgery is
the treatment of choice, most possibly via a transsphenoidal
approach [3]. By contrast, for hormone-inactive
mircroadenomas (<1cm) there is no need for immediate
surgical resection. The follow-up contains endocrine and
ophthalmological evaluation as well as magnetic resonance
imaging (MRI). In case of continuous tumor volume progress,
microsurgical excision becomes the treatment of choice. Thus,
the tumor volume should be rigidly registered over the time of
follow-up.
In this contribution, we present a segmentation method for
pituitary adenoma. The method is based on an algorithm we
developed recently in a previous work where the novel
segmentation scheme was successfully used for segmentation
of glioblastoma multiforme and provided an average Dice
Similarity Coefficient (DSC) of 77%. For automatic and
adequate adenoma segmentation, the original scheme is used,
creating a directed 3D-graph within two steps: sending rays
through the surface points of a polyhedron and sampling the
graph’s nodes along every ray. The center of the polyhedron is
user-defined and located inside the adenoma. Then, the
minimal cost closed set on the graph is computed via a
polynomial time s-t-cut, creating an optimal segmentation of
the adenoma’s boundary and volume. For evaluation,
neurosurgeons with strong experiences in the treatment of
pituitary adenoma performed manual slice-by-slice
segmentation of 10 cases. Afterwards, the segmentations were
compared with the segmentation results of the proposed
method via the Dice Similarity Coefficient (DSC). The
average DSC for all data sets was 77.49%±4.52%. Compared
with a manual segmentation that took, on the average,
3.91±0.54 minutes, the overall segmentation in our
implementation required less than 4 seconds.
The paper is organized as follows. Section 3 presents the
details of the proposed approach. In Section 4, experimental
results are discussed. Section 5 concludes the paper and
outlines areas for future work.
II. RELATED WORK
Based on magnetic resonance imaging, several algorithms
have already been proposed for glioma segmentation. An
extensive overview of some deterministic and statistical
approaches is given by Angelini et al. [4]. The majority of
them are region-based approaches; more recent ones are based
on deformable models and include edge-information.

PROCEEDINGS OF BIOSIGNAL 2010, JULY 14-16, 2010, BERLIN, GERMANY

Neubauer et al. [5] and Wolfsberger et al. [6] introduce
STEPS, a virtual endoscopy system designed to aid surgeons
performing pituitary surgery. STEPS uses a semi-automatic
segmentation method that is based on the so-called watershedfrom-markers technique. The watershed-from-markers
technique uses user-defined markers in the object of interest
and the background. A memory efficient and fast
implementation of the watershed-from-markers algorithm –
also extended to 3D – has been developed by Felkel et al. [7].
Descoteau et al. [8] have proposed a novel multi-scale sheet
enhancement measure and apply it to paranasal sinus bone
segmentation. The measure has the essential properties to be
incorporated in the computation of anatomical models for the
simulation of pituitary surgery.
III. METHODS
Our overall method starts by setting up a directed 3D graph
from a user-defined seed point that is located inside the
pituitary adenoma. To set up the graph, the method samples
along rays that are sent through the surface points of a
polyhedron with the seed point as the center. The sampled
points are the nodes n ∈ V of the graph G(V,E) and e ∈ E is the
corresponding set of edges. There are edges between the nodes
and edges that connect the nodes to a source s and a sink t to
allow the computation of an s-t cut (the source and the sink s, t
∈ V are virtual nodes).
The idea of setting up the graph with a polyhedron goes
back to a catheter simulation algorithm where several
polyhedra were used to align the catheter inside the vessel [9].
In the segmentation scheme, this idea is combined with a
graph-based method that has been introduced for the semiautomatic segmentation of the aorta [10], [11], [12] and
diffusion tensor imaging (DTI) fiber bundle segmentation [13].
However, in this case, setting up the graph was performed by
sampling the nodes in several 2D planes and therefore is not
useful for the segmentation of spherical or elliptical 3D objects
(see Figure 1).

2
In a recent publication [14], the introduced approach for
segmenting spherical or elliptical 3D objects was enhanced by
an arbitrary number of additional seed points to a semiautomatic method. Thereby, the algorithm is supported with
grey value information and geometrical constraints that are
used to segment World Health Organization (WHO) grade IV
gliomas.
The arcs <vi, vj> ∈ E of the graph G connect two nodes vi,
vj. There are two types of ∞-weighted arcs: z-arcs Az and r-arcs
Ar (Z is the number of sampled points along one ray z=(0,…,Z1) and R is the number of rays sent out to the surface points of
a polyhedron r=(0,…,R-1)), where node V(xn,yn,zn) is one
neighbor of node V(x,y,z).
The arcs Az between two nodes along a ray ensure that all
nodes below the polyhedron surface in the graph are included
to form a closed set (correspondingly, the interior of the
spherical object is separated from the exterior in the data). The
arcs Ar between the nodes of different rays constrain the set of
possible segmentations and enforce smoothness via the
parameter ∆r. The larger this parameter is, the larger the
number of possible segmentations is (see Figure 2).

Fig. 2. Principle of a cut of edges between two rays for ∆r=1. Left and middle:
Same cost for a cut (2·∞). Right: Higher cost for a cut (4·∞).

After graph construction, the minimal cost closed set on the
graph is computed via a polynomial time s-t cut [15]. A
Markov Random Field (MRF) approach where each voxel of
the image is a node is definitely too time-consuming for the
data we used (512x512xX). A MRF approach in a recent
publication needed already several minutes for the cut of one
small 2D image [16]. We also thought about using an Active
Contour Method (ACM) [17] and [18] approach where the
initial contour is a polyhedron with an initial radius definitely
smaller than the object (pituitary adenoma). However, ACMs
can get stuck in local minima during the iterative segmentation
(expansion) process. In contrast, a graph cut approach
provides an optimal segmentation for the constructed graph.
IV. RESULTS

Fig. 1. Upper image: unfolding several 2D slices to segment a cylindrical
object. Lower image: unfolding a polyhedron to segment a spherical object.
Left: principal of sending rays through the surface of a polyhedron with 32
vertices. Right: Sampling nodes for the graph along the rays (polyhedron with
92 vertices).

The presented methods were implemented in C++ within the
MeVisLab platform [19]. Using 2432 and 7292 polyhedra
surface points, the overall segmentation (sending rays, graph
construction and mincut computation) in our implementation
took less that 4 seconds on an Intel Core i5-750 CPU, 4x2.66
GHz, 8 GB RAM, Windows XP Professional x64 Version,
Version 2003, Service Pack 2. The ray length is a fixed
parameter (5 cm), determined via the largest pituitary adenoma
of the 10 cases (all pituitary adenoma had a diameter of less
that 5 cm).

PROCEEDINGS OF BIOSIGNAL 2010, JULY 14-16, 2010, BERLIN, GERMANY

3

Fig. 3. Segmentation results for a pituitary adenoma data set with user-defined seed point (blue).

To evaluate the approach, neurological surgeons with
several years of experience in resection of brain tumors
performed manual slice-by-slice segmentation of 10 pituitary
adenomas. Afterwards, the manual segmentations were
compared with the one click segmentation results of the
proposed method via the Dice Similarity Coefficient (DSC)
[20]. The Dice Similarity Coefficient is the relative volume
overlap between A and R, where A and R are the binary masks
from the automatic (A) and the reference (R) segmentation.
V(•) is the volume (in cm3) of voxels inside the binary mask,
by means of counting the number of voxels, then multiplying
with the voxel size:

DSC =

2 ⋅ V ( A ∩ R)
V ( A) + V ( R)

(1)

In Figure 3, several axial slices of a pituitary adenoma are
shown. In every slice, the result of the automatic segmentation
is drawn (red). Additionally, the user-defined seed point is
shown in the middle slice (blue). The average Dice Similarity
Coefficient for all data sets was 77.49%±4.52% (see Table I
for details). Figure 4 shows an axial slice of a pituitary
adenoma (left) and a 3D mask of an automatic segmented
pituitary adenoma (right). Figure 5 shows different views of
sagittal slices with segmented pituitary adenoma performed
with the proposed algorithm.

Fig. 4. Axial slice of a pituitary adenoma (left). 3D mask of an automatic
segmented pituitary adenoma (right).

Fig. 5. Different views of sagittal slices with segmented pituitary adenoma.

V. CONCLUSION
In this paper, a method for pituitary adenoma segmentation
was presented. The method is based on an algorithm we
developed recently in a previous work where the novel
segmentation scheme was successfully used for segmenting
glioblastoma multiforme and provided an average Dice
Similarity Coefficient (DSC) of 77%. For automatic and
adequate adenoma segmentation, the original scheme was
used, creating a directed 3D-graph within two steps: sending
rays through the surface points of a polyhedron and sampling
the graph’s nodes along every ray. The center of the
polyhedron is user-defined and located inside the adenoma.
Then, the minimal cost closed set on the graph is computed via
a polynomial time s-t-cut, creating an optimal segmentation of
the adenoma’s boundary and volume.
For evaluation, neurosurgeons with strong experiences in

TABLE I
SUMMARY OF RESULTS: MIN., MAX., MEAN AND STANDARD DEVIATION FOR 10 PITUITARY ADENOMAS.

min
max

µ ±σ

Volume of tumor (cm3)
manual
algorithm
0.84
1.18
15.57
14.94
6.30 ± 4.07
6.22 ± 4.08

Number of voxels
manual
algorithm
4492
3461
106151
101902
47462.7
47700.6

DSC (%)

manual segmentation
time (min)

71.07
84.67

3
5

77.49 ± 4.52

3.91 ± 0.54

PROCEEDINGS OF BIOSIGNAL 2010, JULY 14-16, 2010, BERLIN, GERMANY

the treatment of pituitary adenoma performed manual slice-byslice segmentation of 10 cases. Afterwards, the segmentations
were compared with the segmentation results of the proposed
method via the Dice Similarity Coefficient. The average Dice
Similarity Coefficient for all data sets was 77.49%±4.52%.
Compared with a manual segmentation that took, on the
average, 3.91±0.54 minutes, the overall segmentation in our
implementation needed less than 4 seconds.
There are several areas of future work. For example, we
want to enhance the presented segmentation scheme with
statistical information about shape – e.g. Active Shape Models
(ASM) [21] – ort texture – e.g. Active Blobs [22] – or shape
and texture – e.g. Active Appearance Models [23] and [24] –
of the desired object. Furthermore, we want use the approach
to segment spherically or elliptically shaped organs like
kidneys [25] and pathologies like cerebral aneurysms [26] and
[27].
VI. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors would like to thank Fraunhofer MeVis in Bremen,
Germany, for their collaboration and especially Horst K. Hahn
for his support.
REFERENCES
M.- A. Weber, S. Zoubaa, M. Politi, I. Grunwald, and M. Essig, Sellar
tumors (in German), Der Radiologe; 47(6):492-500. Springer Berlin /
Heidelberg, 2007.
[2] B. M. K. Biller, A. Colao, S. Petersenn, V. S. Bonert, and M. Boscaro,
Prolactinomas, Cushing's disease and acromegaly: debating the role of
medical therapy for secretory pituitary adenomas, BMC Endocrine
Disorders; 10(1):10, 2010.
[3] M. Buchfelder and S. Schlaffer, Surgical treatment of pituitary tumours,
Best Practice & Research Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism;
23(5):677-92, 2009.
[4] E. D. Angelini, O. Clatz, E. Mandonnet, E. Konukoglu, L. Capelle, and
H. Duffau, Glioma Dynamics and Computational Models: A Review of
Segmentation, Registration, and In Silico Growth Algorithms and their
Clinical Applications, Current Medical Imaging Reviews, 3, pp. 262276, 2007.
[5] A. Neubauer, S. Wolfsberger, M.-T. Forster, L. Mroz, R. Wegenkittl,
and K. Bühler, Advanced virtual endoscopic pituitary surgery, IEEE
Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics (TVCG), 11(5);
pp. 497-507, 2005.
[6] S. Wolfsberger, A. Neubauer, K. Bühler, R. Wegenkittl, T. Czech, S.
Gentzsch, H.-G. Böcher-Schwarz, and E. Knosp, Advanced Virtual
Endoscopy for Endoscopic Transsphenoidal Pituitary Surgery,
Neurosurgery 59(5), pp. 1001-1010, 2006.
[7] P. Felkel, R. Wegenkittl, and M. Bruckschwaiger, Implementation and
Complexity of the Watershed-from-Markers Algorithm Computed as a
Minimal Cost Forest, In: Proceedings of Eurographics ’01, pp. 26-35,
2001.
[8] M. Descoteaux, M. Audette, K. Chinzei, and K. Siddiqi, Bone
enhancement filtering: application to sinus bone segmentation and
simulation of pituitary surgery, Computer Aided Surgery, 11(5):247-55,
2006.
[9] J. Egger, Z. Mostarkic, S. Großkopf, and B. Freisleben, A Fast Vessel
Centerline Extraction Algorithm for Catheter Simulation, In:
Proceedings of the 20th IEEE International Symposium on ComputerBased Medical Systems, Maribor, Slovenia, pp. 177-182, IEEE Press,
2007.
[10] J. Egger, Pre- and postoperative segmentation and virtual stenting of
aneurysms and stenosis (in German), Dissertation, Department of

4

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]

[15]

[16]

[17]

[1]

[18]

[19]

[20]

[21]

[22]

[23]

[24]

[25]

[26]

[27]

Mathematics and Computer Science, University of Marburg, 215 pages,
Marburg, Germany, 2009.
J. Egger, T. O’Donnell, C. Hopfgartner, and B. Freisleben, Graph-Based
Tracking Method for Aortic Thrombus Segmentation, In: Proceedings of
the 4th European Congress for Medical and Biomedical Engineering,
Engineering for Health, Antwerp, Belgium, Springer-Press, 584-587,
2008.
J. Egger, B. Freisleben, R. Setser, R. Renapuraar, C. Biermann, and T.
O’Donnell, Aorta Segmentation for Stent Simulation, In: 12th
International Conference on Medical Image Computing and Computer
Assisted Intervention (MICCAI), Cardiovascular Interventional Imaging
and Biophysical Modelling Workshop, 10 pages, London, United
Kingdom (UK), 2009.
M. H. A. Bauer, J. Egger, T. O’Donnell, B. Freisleben, S. Barbieri, J.
Klein, H. K. Hahn, and Ch. Nimsky, A Fast and Robust Graph-based
Approach for Boundary Estimation of Fiber Bundles Relying on
Fractional Anisotropy Maps, In: Proceedings of the 20th International
Conference on Pattern Recognition (ICPR), Istanbul, Turkey, IEEE
Computer Society, 2010.
J. Egger, M. H. A. Bauer, D. Kuhnt, C. Kappus, B. Carl, B. Freisleben
and Ch. Nimsky, Flexible Semi-Automatic Approach for Glioblastoma
multiforme Segmentation,
In: Proceedings of the International
Biosignal Processing Conference, DGBMT, IEEE, Berlin, Germany,
2010.
Y. Boykov and V. Kolmogorov, An Experimental Comparison of MinCut/Max-Flow Algorithms for Energy Minimization in Vision, IEEE
Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 26(9), pp.
1124-1137, 2004.
A. Shabou, F. Tupin, and J. Darbon, A graph-cut based algorithm for
approximate MRF optimization, International Conference on Image
Processing (ICIP), pp. 2413-2416, 2009.
M. Kass, A. Witkin, and D. Terzopoulos, Constraints on Deformable
Models: Recovering 3D Shape and Nongrid Motion, Artificial
Intelligence, 36:91-123, 1988.
D. Terzopoulos, A. Witkin, and M. Kass, Constraints on deformable
models: Recovering 3D shape and nongrid motion, Artificial
Intelligence, 36: 91-123, 1988.
MeVisLab – development environment for medical image processing
and visualization. MeVis Medical Solutions AG and Fraunhofer
MEVIS, Bremen, Germany.
http://www.mevislab.de
K. H. Zou, S. K. Warfield, A. Bharatha, C. M. C. Tempany, M. R. Kaus,
S. J. Haker, W. M. Wells, F. A. Jolesz, and R. Kikinis, Statistical
Validation of Image Segmentation Quality Based on a Spatial Overlap
Index: Scientific Reports, Academic Radiology, 11(2), pp. 178-189,
2004.
T. F. Cootes and C. J. Taylor, Active Shape Models - ‘Smart Snakes’,
In: Proceedings of the British Machine Vision Conference, pages 266275, 1992.
S. Sclaroff and J. Isidoro, Active Blobs, In: Proceedings of the Sixth
International Conference on Computer Vision, IEEE Computer Society,
pp. 1146-1153, Washington, DC, USA, 1998.
T. F. Cootes, G. J. Edwards, and C. J. Taylor, Active Appearance
Models, In: Proceedings of the European Conference on Computer
Vision (ECCV), volume 2, pp. 484-498. Springer-Press Berlin /
Heidelberg, 1998.
K. Greiner, J. Egger, S. Großkopf, J. N. Kaftan, R. Dörner, and B.
Freisleben, Segmentation of Aortic Aneurysms in CTA-images with the
Statistic Method of the Active Appearance Models (in German),
Proceedings of Bildverarbeitung für die Medizin (BVM), Berlin,
Germany, Springer-Press, 2008.
M. Spiegel, D. A. Hahn, V. Daum, J. Wasza, and J. Hornegger,
Segmentation of kidneys using a new active shape model generation
technique based on non-rigid image registration, Computerized Medical
Imaging and Graphics 33, pp. 29-39, 2009.
B. Ma, R. E. Harbaugh, and M. L. Raghavan, Three-Dimensional
Geometrical Characterization of Cerebral Aneurysms. Annals of
Biomedical Engineering. 32(2): 264-273, 2004.
D.-Y. Kim and J.-W. Park, Computer-Aided Detection of Kidney Tumor
on Abdominal Computed Tomography Scans, Acta Radiologica, 45(7):
791-795, 2004.

