PURPOSE: We aimed to compare the intra- and interoperator variability of lobar volumetry and emphysema scores obtained by semi-automated and manual segmentation techniques in lung emphysema patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In two sessions held three months apart, two operators performed lobar volumetry of unenhanced chest computed tomography examinations of 47 consecutive patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and lung emphysema. Both operators used the manual and semi-automated segmentation techniques. The intra- and interoperator variability of the volumes and emphysema scores obtained by semi-automated segmentation was compared with the variability obtained by manual segmentation of the five pulmonary lobes. RESULTS: The intra- and interoperator variability of the lobar volumes decreased when using semi-automated lobe segmentation (coefficients of repeatability for the first operator: right upper lobe, 147 vs. 96.3; right middle lobe, 137.7 vs. 73.4; right lower lobe, 89.2 vs. 42.4; left upper lobe, 262.2 vs. 54.8; and left lower lobe, 260.5 vs. 56.5; coefficients of repeatability for the second operator: right upper lobe, 61.4 vs. 48.1; right middle lobe, 56 vs. 46.4; right lower lobe, 26.9 vs. 16.7; left upper lobe, 61.4 vs. 27; and left lower lobe, 63.6 vs. 27.5; coefficients of reproducibility in the interoperator analysis: right upper lobe, 191.3 vs. 102.9; right middle lobe, 219.8 vs. 126.5; right lower lobe, 122.6 vs. 90.1; left upper lobe, 166.9 vs. 68.7; and left lower lobe, 168.7 vs. 71.6). The coefficients of repeatability and reproducibility of emphysema scores also decreased when using semi-automated segmentation and had ranges that varied depending on the target lobe and selected threshold of emphysema. CONCLUSION: Semi-automated segmentation reduces the intra- and interoperator variability of lobar volumetry and provides a more objective tool than manual technique for quantifying lung volumes and severity of emphysema.
PURPOSE: We aimed to compare the intra- and interoperator variability of lobar volumetry and emphysema scores obtained by semi-automated and manual segmentation techniques in lung emphysemapatients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In two sessions held three months apart, two operators performed lobar volumetry of unenhanced chest computed tomography examinations of 47 consecutive patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and lung emphysema. Both operators used the manual and semi-automated segmentation techniques. The intra- and interoperator variability of the volumes and emphysema scores obtained by semi-automated segmentation was compared with the variability obtained by manual segmentation of the five pulmonary lobes. RESULTS: The intra- and interoperator variability of the lobar volumes decreased when using semi-automated lobe segmentation (coefficients of repeatability for the first operator: right upper lobe, 147 vs. 96.3; right middle lobe, 137.7 vs. 73.4; right lower lobe, 89.2 vs. 42.4; left upper lobe, 262.2 vs. 54.8; and left lower lobe, 260.5 vs. 56.5; coefficients of repeatability for the second operator: right upper lobe, 61.4 vs. 48.1; right middle lobe, 56 vs. 46.4; right lower lobe, 26.9 vs. 16.7; left upper lobe, 61.4 vs. 27; and left lower lobe, 63.6 vs. 27.5; coefficients of reproducibility in the interoperator analysis: right upper lobe, 191.3 vs. 102.9; right middle lobe, 219.8 vs. 126.5; right lower lobe, 122.6 vs. 90.1; left upper lobe, 166.9 vs. 68.7; and left lower lobe, 168.7 vs. 71.6). The coefficients of repeatability and reproducibility of emphysema scores also decreased when using semi-automated segmentation and had ranges that varied depending on the target lobe and selected threshold of emphysema. CONCLUSION: Semi-automated segmentation reduces the intra- and interoperator variability of lobar volumetry and provides a more objective tool than manual technique for quantifying lung volumes and severity of emphysema.
Authors: Hyun-ju Lim; Oliver Weinheimer; Mark O Wielpütz; Julien Dinkel; Thomas Hielscher; Daniela Gompelmann; Hans-Ulrich Kauczor; Claus Peter Heussel Journal: PLoS One Date: 2016-03-30 Impact factor: 3.240