Literature DB >> 27908157

Volumetry of low-contrast liver lesions with CT: Investigation of estimation uncertainties in a phantom study.

Qin Li1, Yongguang Liang2, Qiao Huang2, Min Zong2, Benjamin Berman1, Marios A Gavrielides1, Lawrence H Schwartz2, Binsheng Zhao2, Nicholas Petrick1.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To evaluate the performance of lesion volumetry in hepatic CT as a function of various imaging acquisition parameters.
METHODS: An anthropomorphic abdominal phantom with removable liver inserts was designed for this study. Two liver inserts, each containing 19 synthetic lesions with varying diameter (6-40 mm), shape, contrast (10-65 HU), and both homogenous and mixed-density were designed to have background and lesion CT values corresponding to arterial and portal-venous phase imaging, respectively. The two phantoms were scanned using two commercial CT scanners (GE 750 HD and Siemens Biograph mCT) across a set of imaging protocols (four slice thicknesses, three effective mAs, two convolution kernels, two pitches). Two repeated scans were collected for each imaging protocol. All scans were analyzed using a matched-filter estimator for volume estimation, resulting in 6080 volume measurements across all of the synthetic lesions in the two liver phantoms. A subset of portal venous phase scans was also analyzed using a semi-automatic segmentation algorithm, resulting in about 900 additional volume measurements. Lesions associated with large measurement error (quantified by root mean square error) for most imaging protocols were considered not measurable by the volume estimation tools and excluded for the statistical analyses. Imaging protocols were grouped into distinct imaging conditions based on ANOVA analysis of factors for repeatability testing. Statistical analyses, including overall linearity analysis, grouped bias analysis with standard deviation evaluation, and repeatability analysis, were performed to assess the accuracy and precision of the liver lesion volume biomarker.
RESULTS: Lesions with lower contrast and size ≤10 mm were associated with higher measurement error and were excluded from further analysis. Lesion size, contrast, imaging slice thickness, dose, and scanner were found to be factors substantially influencing volume estimation. Twenty-four distinct repeatable imaging conditions were determined as protocols for each scanner with a fixed slice thickness and dose. For the matched-filter estimation approach, strong linearity was observed for all imaging data for lesions ≥20 mm. For the Siemens scanner with 50 mAs effective dose at 0.6 mm slice thickness, grouped bias was about -10%. For all other repeatable imaging conditions with both scanners, grouped biases were low (-3%-3%). There was a trend of increasing standard deviation with decreasing dose. For each fixed dose, the standard deviations were similar among the three larger slice thicknesses (1.25, 2.5, 5 mm for GE, 1.5, 3, 5 mm for Siemens). Repeatability coefficients ranged from about 8% to 75% and showed similar trend to grouped standard deviation. For the segmentation approach, the results led to similar conclusions for both lesion characteristic factors and imaging factors but with increasing magnitude in all the error metrics assessed.
CONCLUSIONS: Results showed that liver lesion volumetry was strongly dependent on lesion size, contrast, acquisition dose, and their interactions. The overall performances were similar for images reconstructed with larger slice thicknesses, clinically used pitches, kernels, and doses. Conditions that yielded repeatable measurements were identified and they agreed with the Quantitative Imaging Biomarker Alliance's (QIBA) profile requirements in general. The authors' findings also suggest potential refinements to these guidelines for the tumor volume biomarker, especially for soft-tissue lesions.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27908157      PMCID: PMC5123997          DOI: 10.1118/1.4967776

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Med Phys        ISSN: 0094-2405            Impact factor:   4.071


  22 in total

1.  New guidelines to evaluate the response to treatment in solid tumors. European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer, National Cancer Institute of the United States, National Cancer Institute of Canada.

Authors:  P Therasse; S G Arbuck; E A Eisenhauer; J Wanders; R S Kaplan; L Rubinstein; J Verweij; M Van Glabbeke; A T van Oosterom; M C Christian; S G Gwyther
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2000-02-02       Impact factor: 13.506

2.  A pilot study of volume measurement as a method of tumor response evaluation to aid biomarker development.

Authors:  Binsheng Zhao; Geoffrey R Oxnard; Chaya S Moskowitz; Mark G Kris; William Pao; Pingzhen Guo; Valerie M Rusch; Marc Ladanyi; Naiyer A Rizvi; Lawrence H Schwartz
Journal:  Clin Cancer Res       Date:  2010-06-09       Impact factor: 12.531

3.  Statistical analysis of lung nodule volume measurements with CT in a large-scale phantom study.

Authors:  Qin Li; Marios A Gavrielides; Berkman Sahiner; Kyle J Myers; Rongping Zeng; Nicholas Petrick
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2015-07       Impact factor: 4.071

Review 4.  Modified RECIST (mRECIST) assessment for hepatocellular carcinoma.

Authors:  Riccardo Lencioni; Josep M Llovet
Journal:  Semin Liver Dis       Date:  2010-02-19       Impact factor: 6.115

5.  Hepatic tumors: region-of-interest versus volumetric analysis for quantification of attenuation at CT.

Authors:  Hamid Chalian; Sandra M Tochetto; Hüseyin G Töre; Pedram Rezai; Vahid Yaghmai
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2012-03       Impact factor: 11.105

Review 6.  Assessment of liver tumor response to therapy: role of quantitative imaging.

Authors:  Fernanda D Gonzalez-Guindalini; Marcos P F Botelho; Carla B Harmath; Kumaresan Sandrasegaran; Frank H Miller; Riad Salem; Vahid Yaghmai
Journal:  Radiographics       Date:  2013-10       Impact factor: 5.333

Review 7.  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

8.  Semi-automated method for estimating lesion volumes.

Authors:  Hyun-Joo Park; Andre G Machado; Jessica Cooperrider; Havan Truong-Furmaga; Matthew Johnson; Vibhuti Krishna; Zhihong Chen; John T Gale
Journal:  J Neurosci Methods       Date:  2012-12-20       Impact factor: 2.390

9.  Assessing the effect of CT slice interval on unidimensional, bidimensional and volumetric measurements of solid tumours.

Authors:  Yongqiang Tan; Pingzhen Guo; Helen Mann; Sarah Elizabeth Marley; Marietta Louise Juanita Scott; Lawrence H Schwartz; Dana Cici Ghiorghiu; Binsheng Zhao
Journal:  Cancer Imaging       Date:  2012-10-31       Impact factor: 3.909

10.  Tumor volume as an alternative response measurement for imatinib treated GIST patients.

Authors:  Gaia Schiavon; Alessandro Ruggiero; Patrick Schöffski; Bronno van der Holt; Dave J Bekers; Karel Eechoute; Vincent Vandecaveye; Gabriel P Krestin; Jaap Verweij; Stefan Sleijfer; Ron H J Mathijssen
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2012-11-02       Impact factor: 3.240

View more
  2 in total

1.  Quantitative assessment of nonsolid pulmonary nodule volume with computed tomography in a phantom study.

Authors:  Marios A Gavrielides; Benjamin P Berman; Mark Supanich; Kurt Schultz; Qin Li; Nicholas Petrick; Rongping Zeng; Jenifer Siegelman
Journal:  Quant Imaging Med Surg       Date:  2017-12

2.  CT Volumetry of Convoluted Objects-A Simple Method Using Volume Averaging.

Authors:  Rani Al-Senan; Jeffrey H Newhouse
Journal:  Tomography       Date:  2021-04-13
  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.