PURPOSE: To evaluate the accuracy and consistency of a gradient-based positron emission tomography (PET) segmentation method, GRADIENT, compared with manual (MANUAL) and constant threshold (THRESHOLD) methods. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Contouring accuracy was evaluated with sphere phantoms and clinically realistic Monte Carlo PET phantoms of the thorax. The sphere phantoms were 10-37 mm in diameter and were acquired at five institutions emulating clinical conditions. One institution also acquired a sphere phantom with multiple source-to-background ratios of 2:1, 5:1, 10:1, 20:1, and 70:1. One observer segmented (contoured) each sphere with GRADIENT and THRESHOLD from 25% to 50% at 5% increments. Subsequently, seven physicians segmented 31 lesions (7-264 mL) from 25 digital thorax phantoms using GRADIENT, THRESHOLD, and MANUAL. RESULTS: For spheres <20 mm in diameter, GRADIENT was the most accurate with a mean absolute % error in diameter of 8.15% (10.2% SD) compared with 49.2% (51.1% SD) for 45% THRESHOLD (p < 0.005). For larger spheres, the methods were statistically equivalent. For varying source-to-background ratios, GRADIENT was the most accurate for spheres >20 mm (p < 0.065) and <20 mm (p < 0.015). For digital thorax phantoms, GRADIENT was the most accurate (p < 0.01), with a mean absolute % error in volume of 10.99% (11.9% SD), followed by 25% THRESHOLD at 17.5% (29.4% SD), and MANUAL at 19.5% (17.2% SD). GRADIENT had the least systematic bias, with a mean % error in volume of -0.05% (16.2% SD) compared with 25% THRESHOLD at -2.1% (34.2% SD) and MANUAL at -16.3% (20.2% SD; p value <0.01). Interobserver variability was reduced using GRADIENT compared with both 25% THRESHOLD and MANUAL (p value <0.01, Levene's test). CONCLUSION: GRADIENT was the most accurate and consistent technique for target volume contouring. GRADIENT was also the most robust for varying imaging conditions. GRADIENT has the potential to play an important role for tumor delineation in radiation therapy planning and response assessment.
PURPOSE: To evaluate the accuracy and consistency of a gradient-based positron emission tomography (PET) segmentation method, GRADIENT, compared with manual (MANUAL) and constant threshold (THRESHOLD) methods. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Contouring accuracy was evaluated with sphere phantoms and clinically realistic Monte Carlo PET phantoms of the thorax. The sphere phantoms were 10-37 mm in diameter and were acquired at five institutions emulating clinical conditions. One institution also acquired a sphere phantom with multiple source-to-background ratios of 2:1, 5:1, 10:1, 20:1, and 70:1. One observer segmented (contoured) each sphere with GRADIENT and THRESHOLD from 25% to 50% at 5% increments. Subsequently, seven physicians segmented 31 lesions (7-264 mL) from 25 digital thorax phantoms using GRADIENT, THRESHOLD, and MANUAL. RESULTS: For spheres <20 mm in diameter, GRADIENT was the most accurate with a mean absolute % error in diameter of 8.15% (10.2% SD) compared with 49.2% (51.1% SD) for 45% THRESHOLD (p < 0.005). For larger spheres, the methods were statistically equivalent. For varying source-to-background ratios, GRADIENT was the most accurate for spheres >20 mm (p < 0.065) and <20 mm (p < 0.015). For digital thorax phantoms, GRADIENT was the most accurate (p < 0.01), with a mean absolute % error in volume of 10.99% (11.9% SD), followed by 25% THRESHOLD at 17.5% (29.4% SD), and MANUAL at 19.5% (17.2% SD). GRADIENT had the least systematic bias, with a mean % error in volume of -0.05% (16.2% SD) compared with 25% THRESHOLD at -2.1% (34.2% SD) and MANUAL at -16.3% (20.2% SD; p value <0.01). Interobserver variability was reduced using GRADIENT compared with both 25% THRESHOLD and MANUAL (p value <0.01, Levene's test). CONCLUSION: GRADIENT was the most accurate and consistent technique for target volume contouring. GRADIENT was also the most robust for varying imaging conditions. GRADIENT has the potential to play an important role for tumor delineation in radiation therapy planning and response assessment.
Authors: Lalitha K Shankar; John M Hoffman; Steve Bacharach; Michael M Graham; Joel Karp; Adriaan A Lammertsma; Steven Larson; David A Mankoff; Barry A Siegel; Annick Van den Abbeele; Jeffrey Yap; Daniel Sullivan Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2006-06 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: C B Caldwell; K Mah; Y C Ung; C E Danjoux; J M Balogh; S N Ganguli; L E Ehrlich Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2001-11-15 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Quinten C Black; Inga S Grills; Larry L Kestin; Ching-Yee O Wong; John W Wong; Alvaro A Martinez; Di Yan Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2004-11-15 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Jeffrey Bradley; Wade L Thorstad; Sasa Mutic; Tom R Miller; Farrokh Dehdashti; Barry A Siegel; Walter Bosch; Rudi J Bertrand Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2004-05-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Nitin Ohri; Fenghai Duan; Bradley S Snyder; Bo Wei; Mitchell Machtay; Abass Alavi; Barry A Siegel; Douglas W Johnson; Jeffrey D Bradley; Albert DeNittis; Maria Werner-Wasik; Issam El Naqa Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2016-02-11 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Yonglin Pu; James X Zhang; Haiyan Liu; Daniel Appelbaum; Jianfeng Meng; Bill C Penney Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2018-06-07 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Mathieu Hatt; John A Lee; Charles R Schmidtlein; Issam El Naqa; Curtis Caldwell; Elisabetta De Bernardi; Wei Lu; Shiva Das; Xavier Geets; Vincent Gregoire; Robert Jeraj; Michael P MacManus; Osama R Mawlawi; Ursula Nestle; Andrei B Pugachev; Heiko Schöder; Tony Shepherd; Emiliano Spezi; Dimitris Visvikis; Habib Zaidi; Assen S Kirov Journal: Med Phys Date: 2017-05-18 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Hannah Mary T Thomas; Devadhas Devakumar; Balukrishna Sasidharan; Stephen R Bowen; Danie Kingslin Heck; E James Jebaseelan Samuel Journal: J Med Imaging (Bellingham) Date: 2017-01-23
Authors: Michael MacManus; Sarah Everitt; Tanja Schimek-Jasch; X Allen Li; Ursula Nestle; Feng-Ming Spring Kong Journal: Transl Lung Cancer Res Date: 2017-12