Konrad Stawiski1,2, Joanna Trelińska2, Dobromiła Baranska3, Iwona Dachowska2, Katarzyna Kotulska4, Sergiusz Jóźwiak5, Wojciech Fendler6,7, Wojciech Młynarski2. 1. Department of Biostatistics and Translational Medicine, Hematology and Diabetology, Medical University of Lodz, ul. Sporna 36/50, 91-001, Lodz, Poland. 2. Department of Pediatrics, Oncology, Hematology and Diabetology, University Hospital No 4, Lodz, Poland. 3. Department of Pediatric Radiology, University Hospital No 4, Lodz, Poland. 4. Department of Neurology and Epileptology and Pediatric Rehabilitation, The Children's Memorial Health Institute, Warsaw, Poland. 5. Department of Pediatric Neurology, Medical University of Warsaw, Warsaw, Poland. 6. Department of Biostatistics and Translational Medicine, Hematology and Diabetology, Medical University of Lodz, ul. Sporna 36/50, 91-001, Lodz, Poland. wojciech.fendler@umed.lodz.pl. 7. Department of Pediatrics, Oncology, Hematology and Diabetology, University Hospital No 4, Lodz, Poland. wojciech.fendler@umed.lodz.pl.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the reliability of the standard planimetric methodology of volumetric analysis and three different open-source semi-automated approaches of brain tumor segmentation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The volumes of subependymal giant cell astrocytomas (SEGA) examined by 30 MRI studies of 10 patients from a previous everolimus-related trial (EMINENTS study) were estimated using four methods: planimetric method (modified MacDonald ellipsoid method), ITK-Snap (pixel clustering, geodesic active contours, region competition methods), 3D Slicer (level-set thresholding), and NIRFast (k-means clustering, Markov random fields). The methods were compared, and a trial simulation was performed to determine how the choice of approach could influence the final decision about progression or response. RESULTS: Intraclass correlation coefficient was high (0.95; 95% CI 0.91-0.98). The planimetric method always overestimated the size of the tumor, while virtually no mean difference was found between ITK-Snap and 3D Slicer (P = 0.99). NIRFast underestimated the volume and presented a proportional bias. During the trial simulation, a moderate level of agreement between all the methods (kappa 0.57-0.71, P < 0.002) was noted. CONCLUSION: Semi-automated segmentation can ease oncological follow-up but the moderate level of agreement between segmentation methods suggests that the reference standard volumetric method for SEGA tumors should be revised and chosen carefully, as the selection of volumetry tool may influence the conclusion about tumor progression or response.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the reliability of the standard planimetric methodology of volumetric analysis and three different open-source semi-automated approaches of brain tumor segmentation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The volumes of subependymal giant cell astrocytomas (SEGA) examined by 30 MRI studies of 10 patients from a previous everolimus-related trial (EMINENTS study) were estimated using four methods: planimetric method (modified MacDonald ellipsoid method), ITK-Snap (pixel clustering, geodesic active contours, region competition methods), 3D Slicer (level-set thresholding), and NIRFast (k-means clustering, Markov random fields). The methods were compared, and a trial simulation was performed to determine how the choice of approach could influence the final decision about progression or response. RESULTS: Intraclass correlation coefficient was high (0.95; 95% CI 0.91-0.98). The planimetric method always overestimated the size of the tumor, while virtually no mean difference was found between ITK-Snap and 3D Slicer (P = 0.99). NIRFast underestimated the volume and presented a proportional bias. During the trial simulation, a moderate level of agreement between all the methods (kappa 0.57-0.71, P < 0.002) was noted. CONCLUSION: Semi-automated segmentation can ease oncological follow-up but the moderate level of agreement between segmentation methods suggests that the reference standard volumetric method for SEGA tumors should be revised and chosen carefully, as the selection of volumetry tool may influence the conclusion about tumor progression or response.
Authors: Stephan G Wetzel; Glyn Johnson; Andrew G S Tan; Soonmee Cha; Edmond A Knopp; Vivian S Lee; David Thomasson; Neil M Rofsky Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2002 Jun-Jul Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Hamid Dehghani; Matthew E Eames; Phaneendra K Yalavarthy; Scott C Davis; Subhadra Srinivasan; Colin M Carpenter; Brian W Pogue; Keith D Paulsen Journal: Commun Numer Methods Eng Date: 2008-08-15
Authors: A M Cappellano; A A Senerchia; F Adolfo; P M Paiva; R Pinho; A Covic; S Cavalheiro; N Saba Journal: Childs Nerv Syst Date: 2013-06-07 Impact factor: 1.475
Authors: T Takeda; A Takeda; T Nagaoka; E Kunieda; K Takemasa; M Watanabe; T Hatou; S Oguro; M Katayama Journal: Acta Radiol Date: 2008-12 Impact factor: 1.990
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