PURPOSE: To study the variability in volume change estimates of pulmonary nodules due to segmentation approaches used across several algorithms and to evaluate these effects on the ability to predict nodule malignancy. METHODS: We obtained 100 patient image datasets from the National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) that had a nodule detected on each of two consecutive low dose computed tomography (LDCT) scans, with an equal proportion of malignant and benign cases (50 malignant, 50 benign). Information about the nodule location for the cases was provided by a screen capture with a bounding box and its axial location was indicated. Five participating quantitative imaging network (QIN) institutions performed nodule segmentation using their preferred semi-automated algorithms with no manual correction; teams were allowed to provide additional manually corrected segmentations (analyzed separately). The teams were asked to provide segmentation masks for each nodule at both time points. From these masks, the volume was estimated for the nodule at each time point; the change in volume (absolute and percent change) across time points was estimated as well. We used the concordance correlation coefficient (CCC) to compare the similarity of computed nodule volumes (absolute and percent change) across algorithms. We used Logistic regression model on the change in volume (absolute change and percent change) of the nodules to predict the malignancy status, the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) and confidence intervals were reported. Because the size of nodules was expected to have a substantial effect on segmentation variability, analysis of change in volumes was stratified by lesion size, where lesions were grouped into those with a longest diameter of <8 mm and those with longest diameter ≥ 8 mm. RESULTS: We find that segmentation of the nodules shows substantial variability across algorithms, with the CCC ranging from 0.56 to 0.95 for change in volume (percent change in volume range was [0.15 to 0.86]) across the nodules. When examining nodules based on their longest diameter, we find the CCC had higher values for large nodules with a range of [0.54 to 0.93] among the algorithms, while percent change in volume was [0.3 to 0.95]. Compared to that of smaller nodules which had a range of [-0.0038 to 0.69] and percent change in volume was [-0.039 to 0.92]. The malignancy prediction results showed fairly consistent results across the institutions, the AUC using change in volume ranged from 0.65 to 0.89 (Percent change in volume was 0.64 to 0.86) for entire nodule range. Prediction improves for large nodule range (≥ 8 mm) with AUC range 0.75 to 0.90 (percent change in volume was 0.74 to 0.92). Compared to smaller nodule range (<8 mm) with AUC range 0.57 to 0.78 (percent change in volume was 0.59 to 0.77). CONCLUSIONS: We find there is a fairly high concordance in the size measurements for larger nodules (≥8 mm) than the lower sizes (<8 mm) across algorithms. We find the change in nodule volume (absolute and percent change) were consistent predictors of malignancy across institutions, despite using different segmentation algorithms. Using volume change estimates without corrections shows slightly lower predictability (for two teams).
PURPOSE: To study the variability in volume change estimates of pulmonary nodules due to segmentation approaches used across several algorithms and to evaluate these effects on the ability to predict nodule malignancy. METHODS: We obtained 100 patient image datasets from the National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) that had a nodule detected on each of two consecutive low dose computed tomography (LDCT) scans, with an equal proportion of malignant and benign cases (50 malignant, 50 benign). Information about the nodule location for the cases was provided by a screen capture with a bounding box and its axial location was indicated. Five participating quantitative imaging network (QIN) institutions performed nodule segmentation using their preferred semi-automated algorithms with no manual correction; teams were allowed to provide additional manually corrected segmentations (analyzed separately). The teams were asked to provide segmentation masks for each nodule at both time points. From these masks, the volume was estimated for the nodule at each time point; the change in volume (absolute and percent change) across time points was estimated as well. We used the concordance correlation coefficient (CCC) to compare the similarity of computed nodule volumes (absolute and percent change) across algorithms. We used Logistic regression model on the change in volume (absolute change and percent change) of the nodules to predict the malignancy status, the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) and confidence intervals were reported. Because the size of nodules was expected to have a substantial effect on segmentation variability, analysis of change in volumes was stratified by lesion size, where lesions were grouped into those with a longest diameter of <8 mm and those with longest diameter ≥ 8 mm. RESULTS: We find that segmentation of the nodules shows substantial variability across algorithms, with the CCC ranging from 0.56 to 0.95 for change in volume (percent change in volume range was [0.15 to 0.86]) across the nodules. When examining nodules based on their longest diameter, we find the CCC had higher values for large nodules with a range of [0.54 to 0.93] among the algorithms, while percent change in volume was [0.3 to 0.95]. Compared to that of smaller nodules which had a range of [-0.0038 to 0.69] and percent change in volume was [-0.039 to 0.92]. The malignancy prediction results showed fairly consistent results across the institutions, the AUC using change in volume ranged from 0.65 to 0.89 (Percent change in volume was 0.64 to 0.86) for entire nodule range. Prediction improves for large nodule range (≥ 8 mm) with AUC range 0.75 to 0.90 (percent change in volume was 0.74 to 0.92). Compared to smaller nodule range (<8 mm) with AUC range 0.57 to 0.78 (percent change in volume was 0.59 to 0.77). CONCLUSIONS: We find there is a fairly high concordance in the size measurements for larger nodules (≥8 mm) than the lower sizes (<8 mm) across algorithms. We find the change in nodule volume (absolute and percent change) were consistent predictors of malignancy across institutions, despite using different segmentation algorithms. Using volume change estimates without corrections shows slightly lower predictability (for two teams).
Authors: Matthew S Brown; Michael F McNitt-Gray; Richard Pais; Sumit K Shah; Peiyuan Qing; Irene Da Costa; Denise R Aberle; Jonathan G Goldin Journal: Comput Med Imaging Graph Date: 2007-04-05 Impact factor: 4.790
Authors: Hiren J Mehta; James G Ravenel; Stephanie R Shaftman; Nichole T Tanner; Luca Paoletti; Katherine K Taylor; Martin C Tammemagi; Mario Gomez; Paul J Nietert; Michael K Gould; Gerard A Silvestri Journal: Chest Date: 2014-03-01 Impact factor: 9.410
Authors: Annette McWilliams; Martin C Tammemagi; John R Mayo; Heidi Roberts; Geoffrey Liu; Kam Soghrati; Kazuhiro Yasufuku; Simon Martel; Francis Laberge; Michel Gingras; Sukhinder Atkar-Khattra; Christine D Berg; Ken Evans; Richard Finley; John Yee; John English; Paola Nasute; John Goffin; Serge Puksa; Lori Stewart; Scott Tsai; Michael R Johnston; Daria Manos; Garth Nicholas; Glenwood D Goss; Jean M Seely; Kayvan Amjadi; Alain Tremblay; Paul Burrowes; Paul MacEachern; Rick Bhatia; Ming-Sound Tsao; Stephen Lam Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2013-09-05 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Jane P Ko; Erika J Berman; Manmeen Kaur; James S Babb; Elan Bomsztyk; Alissa K Greenberg; David P Naidich; Henry Rusinek Journal: Radiology Date: 2011-12-09 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Claudia I Henschke; David F Yankelevitz; Rowena Yip; Anthony P Reeves; Ali Farooqi; Dongming Xu; James P Smith; Daniel M Libby; Mark W Pasmantier; Olli S Miettinen Journal: Radiology Date: 2012-03-27 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Samuel G Armato; Geoffrey McLennan; Luc Bidaut; Michael F McNitt-Gray; Charles R Meyer; Anthony P Reeves; Binsheng Zhao; Denise R Aberle; Claudia I Henschke; Eric A Hoffman; Ella A Kazerooni; Heber MacMahon; Edwin J R Van Beeke; David Yankelevitz; Alberto M Biancardi; Peyton H Bland; Matthew S Brown; Roger M Engelmann; Gary E Laderach; Daniel Max; Richard C Pais; David P Y Qing; Rachael Y Roberts; Amanda R Smith; Adam Starkey; Poonam Batrah; Philip Caligiuri; Ali Farooqi; Gregory W Gladish; C Matilda Jude; Reginald F Munden; Iva Petkovska; Leslie E Quint; Lawrence H Schwartz; Baskaran Sundaram; Lori E Dodd; Charles Fenimore; David Gur; Nicholas Petrick; John Freymann; Justin Kirby; Brian Hughes; Alessi Vande Casteele; Sangeeta Gupte; Maha Sallamm; Michael D Heath; Michael H Kuhn; Ekta Dharaiya; Richard Burns; David S Fryd; Marcos Salganicoff; Vikram Anand; Uri Shreter; Stephen Vastagh; Barbara Y Croft Journal: Med Phys Date: 2011-02 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Eleonora Baecke; Harry J de Koning; Suzie J Otto; Carola A van Iersel; Rob J van Klaveren Journal: Lung Cancer Date: 2009-10-03 Impact factor: 5.705
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
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
Authors: Guangyu Tao; Li Zhu; Qunhui Chen; Lekang Yin; Yamin Li; Jiancheng Yang; Bingbing Ni; Zheng Zhang; Chi Wan Koo; Pradnya D Patil; Yinan Chen; Hong Yu; Yi Xu; Xiaodan Ye Journal: Transl Lung Cancer Res Date: 2022-02
Authors: Yoganand Balagurunathan; Andrew Beers; Michael Mcnitt-Gray; Lubomir Hadjiiski; Sandy Napel; Dmitry Goldgof; Gustavo Perez; Pablo Arbelaez; Alireza Mehrtash; Tina Kapur; Ehwa Yang; Jung Won Moon; Gabriel Bernardino Perez; Ricard Delgado-Gonzalo; M Mehdi Farhangi; Amir A Amini; Renkun Ni; Xue Feng; Aditya Bagari; Kiran Vaidhya; Benjamin Veasey; Wiem Safta; Hichem Frigui; Joseph Enguehard; Ali Gholipour; Laura Silvana Castillo; Laura Alexandra Daza; Paul Pinsky; Jayashree Kalpathy-Cramer; Keyvan Farahani Journal: IEEE Trans Med Imaging Date: 2021-11-30 Impact factor: 11.037