BACKGROUND: Change detection is a critical component in the diagnosis and monitoring of many slowly evolving pathologies. OBJECTIVE: This article describes a semiautomatic monitoring approach using longitudinal medical images. We test the method on brain scans of patients with meningioma, which experts have found difficult to monitor because the tumor evolution is very slow and may be obscured by artifacts related to image acquisition. METHODS: We describe a semiautomatic procedure targeted toward identifying difficult-to-detect changes in brain tumor imaging. The tool combines input from a medical expert with state-of-the-art technology. The software is easy to calibrate and, in less than 5 minutes, returns the total volume of tumor change in mm. We test the method on postgadolinium, T1-weighted magnetic resonance images of 10 patients with meningioma and compare our results with experts' findings. We also perform benchmark testing with synthetic data. RESULTS: Our experiments indicated that experts' visual inspections are not sensitive enough to detect subtle growth. Measurements based on experts' manual segmentations were highly accurate but also labor intensive. The accuracy of our approach was comparable to the experts' results. However, our approach required far less user input and generated more consistent measurements. CONCLUSION: The sensitivity of experts' visual inspection is often too low to detect subtle growth of meningiomas from longitudinal scans. Measurements based on experts' segmentation are highly accurate but generally too labor intensive for standard clinical settings. We described an alternative metric that provides accurate and robust measurements of subtle tumor changes while requiring a minimal amount of user input.
BACKGROUND: Change detection is a critical component in the diagnosis and monitoring of many slowly evolving pathologies. OBJECTIVE: This article describes a semiautomatic monitoring approach using longitudinal medical images. We test the method on brain scans of patients with meningioma, which experts have found difficult to monitor because the tumor evolution is very slow and may be obscured by artifacts related to image acquisition. METHODS: We describe a semiautomatic procedure targeted toward identifying difficult-to-detect changes in brain tumor imaging. The tool combines input from a medical expert with state-of-the-art technology. The software is easy to calibrate and, in less than 5 minutes, returns the total volume of tumor change in mm. We test the method on postgadolinium, T1-weighted magnetic resonance images of 10 patients with meningioma and compare our results with experts' findings. We also perform benchmark testing with synthetic data. RESULTS: Our experiments indicated that experts' visual inspections are not sensitive enough to detect subtle growth. Measurements based on experts' manual segmentations were highly accurate but also labor intensive. The accuracy of our approach was comparable to the experts' results. However, our approach required far less user input and generated more consistent measurements. CONCLUSION: The sensitivity of experts' visual inspection is often too low to detect subtle growth of meningiomas from longitudinal scans. Measurements based on experts' segmentation are highly accurate but generally too labor intensive for standard clinical settings. We described an alternative metric that provides accurate and robust measurements of subtle tumor changes while requiring a minimal amount of user input.
Authors: Olivier Clatz; Maxime Sermesant; Pierre-Yves Bondiau; Hervé Delingette; Simon K Warfield; Grégoire Malandain; Nicholas Ayache Journal: IEEE Trans Med Imaging Date: 2005-10 Impact factor: 10.048
Authors: Elizabeth B Claus; Melissa L Bondy; Joellen M Schildkraut; Joseph L Wiemels; Margaret Wrensch; Peter M Black Journal: Neurosurgery Date: 2005-12 Impact factor: 4.654
Authors: K James; E Eisenhauer; M Christian; M Terenziani; D Vena; A Muldal; P Therasse Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 1999-03-17 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Paul M Thompson; Kiralee M Hayashi; Elizabeth R Sowell; Nitin Gogtay; Jay N Giedd; Judith L Rapoport; Greig I de Zubicaray; Andrew L Janke; Stephen E Rose; James Semple; David M Doddrell; Yalin Wang; Theo G M van Erp; Tyrone D Cannon; Arthur W Toga Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2004 Impact factor: 6.556
Authors: K D Hopper; C J Kasales; M A Van Slyke; T A Schwartz; T R TenHave; J A Jozefiak Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 1996-10 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Geir Andre Ringstad; Kyrre Eeg Emblem; Dominic Holland; Anders M Dale; Atle Bjornerud; John K Hald Journal: Neuroradiology Date: 2011-06-07 Impact factor: 2.804
Authors: Lior Weizman; Liat Ben Sira; Leo Joskowicz; Daniel L Rubin; Kristen W Yeom; Shlomi Constantini; Ben Shofty; Dafna Ben Bashat Journal: Med Phys Date: 2014-05 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Antonio Di Ieva; Carlo Russo; Sidong Liu; Anne Jian; Michael Y Bai; Yi Qian; John S Magnussen Journal: Neuroradiology Date: 2021-01-26 Impact factor: 2.804
Authors: Bilwaj Gaonkar; Luke Macyszyn; Michel Bilello; Mohammed Salehi Sadaghiani; Hamed Akbari; Mark A Atthiah; Zarina S Ali; Xiao Da; Yiqang Zhan; Donald O'Rourke; Sean M Grady; Christos Davatzikos Journal: Acad Radiol Date: 2015-03-12 Impact factor: 3.173
Authors: Raymond Y Huang; Prashin Unadkat; Wenya Linda Bi; Elizabeth George; Matthias Preusser; Jay D McCracken; Joseph R Keen; William L Read; Jeffrey J Olson; Katharina Seystahl; Emilie Le Rhun; Ulrich Roelcke; Susanne Koeppen; Julia Furtner; Michael Weller; Jeffrey J Raizer; David Schiff; Patrick Y Wen Journal: Neuro Oncol Date: 2019-02-14 Impact factor: 12.300