Literature DB >> 21132500

Comparison of semi-automated and manual methods to measure the volume of liver tumours on MDCT images.

Léna Dubus1, Mathilde Gayet, Magaly Zappa, Liliane Abaleo, Aurélie De Cooman, Guillaume Orieux, Valérie Vilgrain.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To retrospectively compare semi-automated and manual volume measurements of malignant liver tumours and inter- and intra-observer variability using commercially available software.
METHODS: This study was performed on 60 consecutive patients with untreated liver metastases (30) and HCCs (30), i.e. 92 lesions (49 metastases, 43 HCCs) using hepatic MDCT. Lesion volumes were manually measured independently by two radiologists and semi-automatically by the same two radiologists and a technician. Those measurements were repeated on 20 patients (10 metastases and 10 HCCs) a week later. An independent operator timed all the measurements. Using the Spearman correlation coefficient and Bland-Altman plots, statistical analyses were performed.
RESULTS: Liver lesion volumes obtained with semi-automated and manual methods were well correlated (Spearman, r = 0.98 and 0.91). Their agreement was high for intra-observer measurements with the semi-automated method (Spearman, r = 0.91 and 0.94). The agreement was lower for inter-observer measurements with both methods (Spearman, r = 0.87 for semi-automated and 0.91 for manual). The semi-automated method significantly reduced the post-processing duration (23s ± 19s vs. 33s ± 11s, p value <0.0001).
CONCLUSION: In our study, semi-automated volume analysis of malignant liver tumours correlated well with the manual method. Furthermore, the semi-automated volume analysis was significantly quicker.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 21132500     DOI: 10.1007/s00330-010-2013-2

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur Radiol        ISSN: 0938-7994            Impact factor:   5.315


  14 in total

1.  New guidelines to evaluate the response to treatment in solid tumors. European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer, National Cancer Institute of the United States, National Cancer Institute of Canada.

Authors:  P Therasse; S G Arbuck; E A Eisenhauer; J Wanders; R S Kaplan; L Rubinstein; J Verweij; M Van Glabbeke; A T van Oosterom; M C Christian; S G Gwyther
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2000-02-02       Impact factor: 13.506

2.  Volumetric measurements of pulmonary nodules at multi-row detector CT: in vivo reproducibility.

Authors:  Dag Wormanns; Gerhard Kohl; Ernst Klotz; Anke Marheine; Florian Beyer; Walter Heindel; Stefan Diederich
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2003-11-13       Impact factor: 5.315

3.  Inadequacy of manual measurements compared to automated CT volumetry in assessment of treatment response of pulmonary metastases using RECIST criteria.

Authors:  Katharina Marten; Florian Auer; Stefan Schmidt; Gerhard Kohl; Ernst J Rummeny; Christoph Engelke
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2005-12-06       Impact factor: 5.315

4.  Semiautomated versus manual evaluation of liver metastases treated by radiofrequency ablation.

Authors:  Sebastian Keil; Philipp Bruners; Lutz Ohnsorge; Cedric Plumhans; Florian F Behrendt; Sven Stanzel; Michael Sühling; Rolf W Günther; Marco Das; Andreas H Mahnken
Journal:  J Vasc Interv Radiol       Date:  2010-02       Impact factor: 3.464

5.  Reporting results of cancer treatment.

Authors:  A B Miller; B Hoogstraten; M Staquet; A Winkler
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  1981-01-01       Impact factor: 6.860

6.  Semi-automated volumetric analysis of lymph node metastases in patients with malignant melanoma stage III/IV--a feasibility study.

Authors:  M Fabel; H von Tengg-Kobligk; F L Giesel; L Bornemann; V Dicken; A Kopp-Schneider; C Moser; S Delorme; H-U Kauczor
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2008-02-15       Impact factor: 5.315

7.  Validation of novel imaging methodologies for use as cancer clinical trial end-points.

Authors:  D J Sargent; L Rubinstein; L Schwartz; J E Dancey; C Gatsonis; L E Dodd; L K Shankar
Journal:  Eur J Cancer       Date:  2008-12-16       Impact factor: 9.162

8.  New response evaluation criteria in solid tumours: revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1).

Authors:  E A Eisenhauer; P Therasse; J Bogaerts; L H Schwartz; D Sargent; R Ford; J Dancey; S Arbuck; S Gwyther; M Mooney; L Rubinstein; L Shankar; L Dodd; R Kaplan; D Lacombe; J Verweij
Journal:  Eur J Cancer       Date:  2009-01       Impact factor: 9.162

9.  Semi-automated measurement of hyperdense, hypodense and heterogeneous hepatic metastasis on standard MDCT slices. Comparison of semi-automated and manual measurement of RECIST and WHO criteria.

Authors:  Sebastian Keil; Florian F Behrendt; Sven Stanzel; Michael Sühling; Alexander Koch; Jhenee Bubenzer; Georg Mühlenbruch; Andreas H Mahnken; Rolf W Günther; Marco Das
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2008-06-04       Impact factor: 5.315

10.  Interobserver and intraobserver variability in measurement of non-small-cell carcinoma lung lesions: implications for assessment of tumor response.

Authors:  Jeremy J Erasmus; Gregory W Gladish; Lyle Broemeling; Bradley S Sabloff; Mylene T Truong; Roy S Herbst; Reginald F Munden
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2003-07-01       Impact factor: 44.544

View more
  3 in total

1.  Assessment of liver volume variation to evaluate liver function.

Authors:  Cong Tong; Xinsen Xu; Chang Liu; Tianzheng Zhang; Kai Qu
Journal:  Front Med       Date:  2012-09-28       Impact factor: 4.592

2.  Conversion therapy and suitable timing for subsequent salvage surgery for initially unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma: What is new?

Authors:  Ze-Feng Zhang; Yu-Jun Luo; Quan Lu; Shi-Xue Dai; Wei-Hong Sha
Journal:  World J Clin Cases       Date:  2018-09-06       Impact factor: 1.337

3.  Deep learning with convolutional neural networks for identification of liver masses and hepatocellular carcinoma: A systematic review.

Authors:  Samy A Azer
Journal:  World J Gastrointest Oncol       Date:  2019-12-15
  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.