Literature DB >> 26847203

A Comparison of Lung Nodule Segmentation Algorithms: Methods and Results from a Multi-institutional Study.

Jayashree Kalpathy-Cramer1, Binsheng Zhao2, Dmitry Goldgof3, Yuhua Gu4, Xingwei Wang5, Hao Yang2, Yongqiang Tan2, Robert Gillies4, Sandy Napel6.   

Abstract

Tumor volume estimation, as well as accurate and reproducible borders segmentation in medical images, are important in the diagnosis, staging, and assessment of response to cancer therapy. The goal of this study was to demonstrate the feasibility of a multi-institutional effort to assess the repeatability and reproducibility of nodule borders and volume estimate bias of computerized segmentation algorithms in CT images of lung cancer, and to provide results from such a study. The dataset used for this evaluation consisted of 52 tumors in 41 CT volumes (40 patient datasets and 1 dataset containing scans of 12 phantom nodules of known volume) from five collections available in The Cancer Imaging Archive. Three academic institutions developing lung nodule segmentation algorithms submitted results for three repeat runs for each of the nodules. We compared the performance of lung nodule segmentation algorithms by assessing several measurements of spatial overlap and volume measurement. Nodule sizes varied from 29 μl to 66 ml and demonstrated a diversity of shapes. Agreement in spatial overlap of segmentations was significantly higher for multiple runs of the same algorithm than between segmentations generated by different algorithms (p < 0.05) and was significantly higher on the phantom dataset compared to the other datasets (p < 0.05). Algorithms differed significantly in the bias of the measured volumes of the phantom nodules (p < 0.05) underscoring the need for assessing performance on clinical data in addition to phantoms. Algorithms that most accurately estimated nodule volumes were not the most repeatable, emphasizing the need to evaluate both their accuracy and precision. There were considerable differences between algorithms, especially in a subset of heterogeneous nodules, underscoring the recommendation that the same software be used at all time points in longitudinal studies.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Computed tomography; Infrastructure; Lung cancer; Quantitative imaging; Segmentation

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 26847203      PMCID: PMC4942386          DOI: 10.1007/s10278-016-9859-z

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Digit Imaging        ISSN: 0897-1889            Impact factor:   4.056


  40 in total

1.  Guidelines for management of small pulmonary nodules detected on CT scans: a statement from the Fleischner Society.

Authors:  Heber MacMahon; John H M Austin; Gordon Gamsu; Christian J Herold; James R Jett; David P Naidich; Edward F Patz; Stephen J Swensen
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2005-11       Impact factor: 11.105

2.  The Lung Image Database Consortium (LIDC): a comparison of different size metrics for pulmonary nodule measurements.

Authors:  Anthony P Reeves; Alberto M Biancardi; Tatiyana V Apanasovich; Charles R Meyer; Heber MacMahon; Edwin J R van Beek; Ella A Kazerooni; David Yankelevitz; Michael F McNitt-Gray; Geoffrey McLennan; Samuel G Armato; Claudia I Henschke; Denise R Aberle; Barbara Y Croft; Laurence P Clarke
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2007-12       Impact factor: 3.173

3.  Avoiding overdiagnosis in lung cancer screening: the volume doubling time strategy.

Authors:  Marie-Pierre Revel
Journal:  Eur Respir J       Date:  2013-12       Impact factor: 16.671

4.  Development of a software for quantitative evaluation radiotherapy target and organ-at-risk segmentation comparison.

Authors:  Jayashree Kalpathy-Cramer; Musaddiq Awan; Steven Bedrick; Coen R N Rasch; David I Rosenthal; Clifton D Fuller
Journal:  J Digit Imaging       Date:  2014-02       Impact factor: 4.056

Review 5.  European and North American lung cancer screening experience and implications for pulmonary nodule management.

Authors:  Arjun Nair; David M Hansell
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2011-08-10       Impact factor: 5.315

6.  Assessing agreement between measurements recorded on a ratio scale in sports medicine and sports science.

Authors:  A M Nevill; G Atkinson
Journal:  Br J Sports Med       Date:  1997-12       Impact factor: 13.800

7.  A concordance correlation coefficient to evaluate reproducibility.

Authors:  L I Lin
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  1989-03       Impact factor: 2.571

8.  Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement.

Authors:  J M Bland; D G Altman
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  1986-02-08       Impact factor: 79.321

Review 9.  Quantitative imaging biomarkers: a review of statistical methods for computer algorithm comparisons.

Authors:  Nancy A Obuchowski; Anthony P Reeves; Erich P Huang; Xiao-Feng Wang; Andrew J Buckler; Hyun J Grace Kim; Huiman X Barnhart; Edward F Jackson; Maryellen L Giger; Gene Pennello; Alicia Y Toledano; Jayashree Kalpathy-Cramer; Tatiyana V Apanasovich; Paul E Kinahan; Kyle J Myers; Dmitry B Goldgof; Daniel P Barboriak; Robert J Gillies; Lawrence H Schwartz; Daniel C Sullivan
Journal:  Stat Methods Med Res       Date:  2014-06-11       Impact factor: 3.021

10.  The caBIG annotation and image Markup project.

Authors:  David S Channin; Pattanasak Mongkolwat; Vladimir Kleper; Kastubh Sepukar; Daniel L Rubin
Journal:  J Digit Imaging       Date:  2009-03-18       Impact factor: 4.056

View more
  25 in total

1.  Validation of a method for retroperitoneal tumor segmentation.

Authors:  Cristina Suárez-Mejías; José A Pérez-Carrasco; Carmen Serrano; José L López-Guerra; Tomás Gómez-Cía; Carlos L Parra-Calderón; Begoña Acha
Journal:  Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg       Date:  2017-02-10       Impact factor: 2.924

2.  Comparison of prediction models with radiological semantic features and radiomics in lung cancer diagnosis of the pulmonary nodules: a case-control study.

Authors:  Wei Wu; Larry A Pierce; Yuzheng Zhang; Sudhakar N J Pipavath; Timothy W Randolph; Kristin J Lastwika; Paul D Lampe; A McGarry Houghton; Haining Liu; Liming Xia; Paul E Kinahan
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2019-05-21       Impact factor: 5.315

Review 3.  Sensor, Signal, and Imaging Informatics.

Authors:  W Hsu; S Park; Charles E Kahn
Journal:  Yearb Med Inform       Date:  2017-09-11

4.  Deep Deconvolutional Residual Network Based Automatic Lung Nodule Segmentation.

Authors:  Ganesh Singadkar; Abhishek Mahajan; Meenakshi Thakur; Sanjay Talbar
Journal:  J Digit Imaging       Date:  2020-06       Impact factor: 4.056

5.  A radiomics approach for lung nodule detection in thoracic CT images based on the dynamic patterns of morphological variation.

Authors:  Fan-Ya Lin; Yeun-Chung Chang; Hsuan-Yu Huang; Chia-Chen Li; Yi-Chang Chen; Chung-Ming Chen
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2022-01-12       Impact factor: 5.315

6.  Quantitative image features from radiomic biopsy differentiate oncocytoma from chromophobe renal cell carcinoma.

Authors:  Akshay Jaggi; Domenico Mastrodicasa; Gregory W Charville; R Brooke Jeffrey; Sandy Napel; Bhavik Patel
Journal:  J Med Imaging (Bellingham)       Date:  2021-09-07

7.  Stability and reproducibility of computed tomography radiomic features extracted from peritumoral regions of lung cancer lesions.

Authors:  Ilke Tunali; Lawrence O Hall; Sandy Napel; Dmitry Cherezov; Albert Guvenis; Robert J Gillies; Matthew B Schabath
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2019-09-23       Impact factor: 4.071

8.  Multiple Resolution Residually Connected Feature Streams for Automatic Lung Tumor Segmentation From CT Images.

Authors:  Jue Jiang; Yu-Chi Hu; Chia-Ju Liu; Darragh Halpenny; Matthew D Hellmann; Joseph O Deasy; Gig Mageras; Harini Veeraraghavan
Journal:  IEEE Trans Med Imaging       Date:  2018-07-23       Impact factor: 10.048

Review 9.  The Use of Quantitative Imaging in Radiation Oncology: A Quantitative Imaging Network (QIN) Perspective.

Authors:  Robert H Press; Hui-Kuo G Shu; Hyunsuk Shim; James M Mountz; Brenda F Kurland; Richard L Wahl; Ella F Jones; Nola M Hylton; Elizabeth R Gerstner; Robert J Nordstrom; Lori Henderson; Karen A Kurdziel; Bhadrasain Vikram; Michael A Jacobs; Matthias Holdhoff; Edward Taylor; David A Jaffray; Lawrence H Schwartz; David A Mankoff; Paul E Kinahan; Hannah M Linden; Philippe Lambin; Thomas J Dilling; Daniel L Rubin; Lubomir Hadjiiski; John M Buatti
Journal:  Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys       Date:  2018-06-30       Impact factor: 7.038

10.  Comparative evaluation of conventional and deep learning methods for semi-automated segmentation of pulmonary nodules on CT.

Authors:  Francesco Bianconi; Mario Luca Fravolini; Sofia Pizzoli; Isabella Palumbo; Matteo Minestrini; Maria Rondini; Susanna Nuvoli; Angela Spanu; Barbara Palumbo
Journal:  Quant Imaging Med Surg       Date:  2021-07
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.