Literature DB >> 20231069

Evaluation of automatic atlas-based lymph node segmentation for head-and-neck cancer.

Liza J Stapleford1, Joshua D Lawson, Charles Perkins, Scott Edelman, Lawrence Davis, Mark W McDonald, Anthony Waller, Eduard Schreibmann, Tim Fox.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To evaluate if automatic atlas-based lymph node segmentation (LNS) improves efficiency and decreases inter-observer variability while maintaining accuracy. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Five physicians with head-and-neck IMRT experience used computed tomography (CT) data from 5 patients to create bilateral neck clinical target volumes covering specified nodal levels. A second contour set was automatically generated using a commercially available atlas. Physicians modified the automatic contours to make them acceptable for treatment planning. To assess contour variability, the Simultaneous Truth and Performance Level Estimation (STAPLE) algorithm was used to take collections of contours and calculate a probabilistic estimate of the "true" segmentation. Differences between the manual, automatic, and automatic-modified (AM) contours were analyzed using multiple metrics.
RESULTS: Compared with the "true" segmentation created from manual contours, the automatic contours had a high degree of accuracy, with sensitivity, Dice similarity coefficient, and mean/max surface disagreement values comparable to the average manual contour (86%, 76%, 3.3/17.4 mm automatic vs. 73%, 79%, 2.8/17 mm manual). The AM group was more consistent than the manual group for multiple metrics, most notably reducing the range of contour volume (106-430 mL manual vs. 176-347 mL AM) and percent false positivity (1-37% manual vs. 1-7% AM). Average contouring time savings with the automatic segmentation was 11.5 min per patient, a 35% reduction.
CONCLUSIONS: Using the STAPLE algorithm to generate "true" contours from multiple physician contours, we demonstrated that, in comparison with manual segmentation, atlas-based automatic LNS for head-and-neck cancer is accurate, efficient, and reduces interobserver variability. (c) 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20231069     DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2009.09.023

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys        ISSN: 0360-3016            Impact factor:   7.038


  46 in total

1.  Comparison of manual and automatic segmentation methods for brain structures in the presence of space-occupying lesions: a multi-expert study.

Authors:  M A Deeley; A Chen; R Datteri; J H Noble; A J Cmelak; E F Donnelly; A W Malcolm; L Moretti; J Jaboin; K Niermann; Eddy S Yang; David S Yu; F Yei; T Koyama; G X Ding; B M Dawant
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2011-07-01       Impact factor: 3.609

Review 2.  Interobserver variation in parotid gland delineation: a study of its impact on intensity-modulated radiotherapy solutions with a systematic review of the literature.

Authors:  S W Loo; W M C Martin; P Smith; S Cherian; T W Roques
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2012-08       Impact factor: 3.039

Review 3.  Vision 20/20: perspectives on automated image segmentation for radiotherapy.

Authors:  Gregory Sharp; Karl D Fritscher; Vladimir Pekar; Marta Peroni; Nadya Shusharina; Harini Veeraraghavan; Jinzhong Yang
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2014-05       Impact factor: 4.071

4.  Statistical modeling approach to quantitative analysis of interobserver variability in breast contouring.

Authors:  Jinzhong Yang; Wendy A Woodward; Valerie K Reed; Eric A Strom; George H Perkins; Welela Tereffe; Thomas A Buchholz; Lifei Zhang; Peter Balter; Laurence E Court; X Allen Li; Lei Dong
Journal:  Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys       Date:  2014-03-07       Impact factor: 7.038

5.  Influence of patient-specific anatomy on medical computed tomography and risk evaluation of minimally invasive surgery at the otobasis.

Authors:  Vanessa Schieferbein; Judith Bredemann; R Schmitt; I Stenin; T Klenzner; Jörg Schipper; Julia Kristin
Journal:  Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2018-12-15       Impact factor: 2.503

6.  Evaluation of whole-body MR to CT deformable image registration.

Authors:  A Akbarzadeh; D Gutierrez; A Baskin; M R Ay; A Ahmadian; N Riahi Alam; K O Lövblad; H Zaidi
Journal:  J Appl Clin Med Phys       Date:  2013-07-08       Impact factor: 2.102

7.  Head and neck lymph node region delineation with image registration.

Authors:  Chia-Chi Teng; Linda G Shapiro; Ira J Kalet
Journal:  Biomed Eng Online       Date:  2010-06-22       Impact factor: 2.819

8.  A multimodality segmentation framework for automatic target delineation in head and neck radiotherapy.

Authors:  Jinzhong Yang; Beth M Beadle; Adam S Garden; David L Schwartz; Michalis Aristophanous
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2015-09       Impact factor: 4.071

9.  Segmentation editing improves efficiency while reducing inter-expert variation and maintaining accuracy for normal brain tissues in the presence of space-occupying lesions.

Authors:  M A Deeley; A Chen; R D Datteri; J Noble; A Cmelak; E Donnelly; A Malcolm; L Moretti; J Jaboin; K Niermann; Eddy S Yang; David S Yu; B M Dawant
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2013-05-17       Impact factor: 3.609

10.  Segmentation precision of abdominal anatomy for MRI-based radiotherapy.

Authors:  Camille E Noel; Fan Zhu; Andrew Y Lee; Hu Yanle; Parag J Parikh
Journal:  Med Dosim       Date:  2014-04-13       Impact factor: 1.482

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.