T Huber1, G Alber2, S Bette2, T Boeckh-Behrens2, J Gempt3, F Ringel3, E Alberts2, C Zimmer2, J S Bauer2. 1. Department of Neuroradiology, Klinikum rechts der Isar, Technical University of Munich, Ismaninger Str. 22, 81675, Munich, Germany. thomas-huber@tum.de. 2. Department of Neuroradiology, Klinikum rechts der Isar, Technical University of Munich, Ismaninger Str. 22, 81675, Munich, Germany. 3. Department of Neurosurgery, Klinikum rechts der Isar, Technical University of Munich, Ismaninger Str. 22, 81675, Munich, Germany.
Abstract
PURPOSE: In glioblastoma, quantitative volumetric measurements of contrast-enhancing or fluid-attenuated inversion recovery (FLAIR) hyperintense tumor compartments are needed for an objective assessment of therapy response. The aim of this study was to evaluate the reliability of a semi-automated, region-growing segmentation tool for determining tumor volume in patients with glioblastoma among different users of the software. METHODS: A total of 320 segmentations of tumor-associated FLAIR changes and contrast-enhancing tumor tissue were performed by different raters (neuroradiologists, medical students, and volunteers). All patients underwent high-resolution magnetic resonance imaging including a 3D-FLAIR and a 3D-MPRage sequence. Segmentations were done using a semi-automated, region-growing segmentation tool. Intra- and inter-rater-reliability were addressed by intra-class-correlation (ICC). Root-mean-square error (RMSE) was used to determine the precision error. Dice score was calculated to measure the overlap between segmentations. RESULTS: Semi-automated segmentation showed a high ICC (> 0.985) for all groups indicating an excellent intra- and inter-rater-reliability. Significant smaller precision errors and higher Dice scores were observed for FLAIR segmentations compared with segmentations of contrast-enhancement. Single rater segmentations showed the lowest RMSE for FLAIR of 3.3 % (MPRage: 8.2 %). Both, single raters and neuroradiologists had the lowest precision error for longitudinal evaluation of FLAIR changes. CONCLUSIONS: Semi-automated volumetry of glioblastoma was reliably performed by all groups of raters, even without neuroradiologic expertise. Interestingly, segmentations of tumor-associated FLAIR changes were more reliable than segmentations of contrast enhancement. In longitudinal evaluations, an experienced rater can detect progressive FLAIR changes of less than 15 % reliably in a quantitative way which could help to detect progressive disease earlier.
PURPOSE: In glioblastoma, quantitative volumetric measurements of contrast-enhancing or fluid-attenuated inversion recovery (FLAIR) hyperintense tumor compartments are needed for an objective assessment of therapy response. The aim of this study was to evaluate the reliability of a semi-automated, region-growing segmentation tool for determining tumor volume in patients with glioblastoma among different users of the software. METHODS: A total of 320 segmentations of tumor-associated FLAIR changes and contrast-enhancing tumor tissue were performed by different raters (neuroradiologists, medical students, and volunteers). All patients underwent high-resolution magnetic resonance imaging including a 3D-FLAIR and a 3D-MPRage sequence. Segmentations were done using a semi-automated, region-growing segmentation tool. Intra- and inter-rater-reliability were addressed by intra-class-correlation (ICC). Root-mean-square error (RMSE) was used to determine the precision error. Dice score was calculated to measure the overlap between segmentations. RESULTS: Semi-automated segmentation showed a high ICC (> 0.985) for all groups indicating an excellent intra- and inter-rater-reliability. Significant smaller precision errors and higher Dice scores were observed for FLAIR segmentations compared with segmentations of contrast-enhancement. Single rater segmentations showed the lowest RMSE for FLAIR of 3.3 % (MPRage: 8.2 %). Both, single raters and neuroradiologists had the lowest precision error for longitudinal evaluation of FLAIR changes. CONCLUSIONS: Semi-automated volumetry of glioblastoma was reliably performed by all groups of raters, even without neuroradiologic expertise. Interestingly, segmentations of tumor-associated FLAIR changes were more reliable than segmentations of contrast enhancement. In longitudinal evaluations, an experienced rater can detect progressive FLAIR changes of less than 15 % reliably in a quantitative way which could help to detect progressive disease earlier.
Authors: Alexander Radbruch; Kira Lutz; Benedikt Wiestler; Philipp Bäumer; Sabine Heiland; Wolfgang Wick; Martin Bendszus Journal: Neuro Oncol Date: 2011-12-06 Impact factor: 12.300
Authors: Patrick Y Wen; David R Macdonald; David A Reardon; Timothy F Cloughesy; A Gregory Sorensen; Evanthia Galanis; John Degroot; Wolfgang Wick; Mark R Gilbert; Andrew B Lassman; Christina Tsien; Tom Mikkelsen; Eric T Wong; Marc C Chamberlain; Roger Stupp; Kathleen R Lamborn; Michael A Vogelbaum; Martin J van den Bent; Susan M Chang Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2010-03-15 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Olivier L Chinot; Wolfgang Wick; Warren Mason; Roger Henriksson; Frank Saran; Ryo Nishikawa; Antoine F Carpentier; Khe Hoang-Xuan; Petr Kavan; Dana Cernea; Alba A Brandes; Magalie Hilton; Lauren Abrey; Timothy Cloughesy Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2014-02-20 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Roger Stupp; Monika E Hegi; Warren P Mason; Martin J van den Bent; Martin J B Taphoorn; Robert C Janzer; Samuel K Ludwin; Anouk Allgeier; Barbara Fisher; Karl Belanger; Peter Hau; Alba A Brandes; Johanna Gijtenbeek; Christine Marosi; Charles J Vecht; Karima Mokhtari; Pieter Wesseling; Salvador Villa; Elizabeth Eisenhauer; Thierry Gorlia; Michael Weller; Denis Lacombe; J Gregory Cairncross; René-Olivier Mirimanoff Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2009-03-09 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Bjoern H Menze; Andras Jakab; Stefan Bauer; Jayashree Kalpathy-Cramer; Keyvan Farahani; Justin Kirby; Yuliya Burren; Nicole Porz; Johannes Slotboom; Roland Wiest; Levente Lanczi; Elizabeth Gerstner; Marc-André Weber; Tal Arbel; Brian B Avants; Nicholas Ayache; Patricia Buendia; D Louis Collins; Nicolas Cordier; Jason J Corso; Antonio Criminisi; Tilak Das; Hervé Delingette; Çağatay Demiralp; Christopher R Durst; Michel Dojat; Senan Doyle; Joana Festa; Florence Forbes; Ezequiel Geremia; Ben Glocker; Polina Golland; Xiaotao Guo; Andac Hamamci; Khan M Iftekharuddin; Raj Jena; Nigel M John; Ender Konukoglu; Danial Lashkari; José Antonió Mariz; Raphael Meier; Sérgio Pereira; Doina Precup; Stephen J Price; Tammy Riklin Raviv; Syed M S Reza; Michael Ryan; Duygu Sarikaya; Lawrence Schwartz; Hoo-Chang Shin; Jamie Shotton; Carlos A Silva; Nuno Sousa; Nagesh K Subbanna; Gabor Szekely; Thomas J Taylor; Owen M Thomas; Nicholas J Tustison; Gozde Unal; Flor Vasseur; Max Wintermark; Dong Hye Ye; Liang Zhao; Binsheng Zhao; Darko Zikic; Marcel Prastawa; Mauricio Reyes; Koen Van Leemput Journal: IEEE Trans Med Imaging Date: 2014-12-04 Impact factor: 10.048
Authors: Nicole Porz; Stefan Bauer; Alessia Pica; Philippe Schucht; Jürgen Beck; Rajeev Kumar Verma; Johannes Slotboom; Mauricio Reyes; Roland Wiest Journal: PLoS One Date: 2014-05-07 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: L Danieli; G C Riccitelli; D Distefano; E Prodi; E Ventura; A Cianfoni; A Kaelin-Lang; M Reinert; E Pravatà Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2019-06-20 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Nicole Porz; Simon Habegger; Raphael Meier; Rajeev Verma; Astrid Jilch; Jens Fichtner; Urspeter Knecht; Christian Radina; Philippe Schucht; Jürgen Beck; Andreas Raabe; Johannes Slotboom; Mauricio Reyes; Roland Wiest Journal: PLoS One Date: 2016-11-02 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Thomas Huber; Georgina Alber; Stefanie Bette; Johannes Kaesmacher; Tobias Boeckh-Behrens; Jens Gempt; Florian Ringel; Hanno M Specht; Bernhard Meyer; Claus Zimmer; Benedikt Wiestler; Jan S Kirschke Journal: PLoS One Date: 2017-02-28 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Stefanie Bette; Melanie Barz; Huong Ly Nham; Thomas Huber; Maria Berndt; Arthur Sales; Friederike Schmidt-Graf; Hanno S Meyer; Yu-Mi Ryang; Bernhard Meyer; Claus Zimmer; Jan S Kirschke; Benedikt Wiestler; Jens Gempt Journal: Cancers (Basel) Date: 2020-04-17 Impact factor: 6.639
Authors: M Visser; D M J Müller; R J M van Duijn; M Smits; N Verburg; E J Hendriks; R J A Nabuurs; J C J Bot; R S Eijgelaar; M Witte; M B van Herk; F Barkhof; P C de Witt Hamer; J C de Munck Journal: Neuroimage Clin Date: 2019-02-22 Impact factor: 4.881
Authors: Jonas Ort; Hussam Aldin Hamou; Julius M Kernbach; Karlijn Hakvoort; Christian Blume; Philipp Lohmann; Norbert Galldiks; Dieter Henrik Heiland; Felix M Mottaghy; Hans Clusmann; Georg Neuloh; Karl-Josef Langen; Daniel Delev Journal: J Neurooncol Date: 2021-10-01 Impact factor: 4.130
Authors: David Bouget; André Pedersen; Asgeir S Jakola; Vasileios Kavouridis; Kyrre E Emblem; Roelant S Eijgelaar; Ivar Kommers; Hilko Ardon; Frederik Barkhof; Lorenzo Bello; Mitchel S Berger; Marco Conti Nibali; Julia Furtner; Shawn Hervey-Jumper; Albert J S Idema; Barbara Kiesel; Alfred Kloet; Emmanuel Mandonnet; Domenique M J Müller; Pierre A Robe; Marco Rossi; Tommaso Sciortino; Wimar A Van den Brink; Michiel Wagemakers; Georg Widhalm; Marnix G Witte; Aeilko H Zwinderman; Philip C De Witt Hamer; Ole Solheim; Ingerid Reinertsen Journal: Front Neurol Date: 2022-07-27 Impact factor: 4.086
Authors: Matthew D Garrett; Ted K Yanagihara; Randy Yeh; Guy M McKhann; Michael B Sisti; Jeffrey N Bruce; Sameer A Sheth; Adam M Sonabend; Tony J C Wang Journal: Tomography Date: 2017-09