Literature DB >> 29363773

Semi-automated pulmonary nodule interval segmentation using the NLST data.

Yoganand Balagurunathan1, Andrew Beers2, Jayashree Kalpathy-Cramer2, Michael McNitt-Gray3, Lubomir Hadjiiski4, Bensheng Zhao5, Jiangguo Zhu5, Hao Yang5, Stephen S F Yip6,7, Hugo J W L Aerts6,7, Sandy Napel8, Dmitrii Cherezov1,9, Kenny Cha4, Heang-Ping Chan4, Carlos Flores3, Alberto Garcia1, Robert Gillies1, Dmitry Goldgof1,9.   

Abstract

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).
© 2018 American Association of Physicists in Medicine.

Entities:  

Keywords:  CT lung; change in volume segmentation; lung nodule segmentation; volume estimate

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29363773      PMCID: PMC5952359          DOI: 10.1002/mp.12766

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


  26 in total

1.  Cognition Network Technology prototype of a CAD system for mammography to assist radiologists by finding similar cases in a reference database.

Authors:  Ralf Schönmeyer; Maria Athelogou; Harald Sittek; Peter Ellenberg; Owen Feehan; Günter Schmidt; Gerd Binnig
Journal:  Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg       Date:  2010-05-26       Impact factor: 2.924

2.  CAD in clinical trials: current role and architectural requirements.

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

3.  The utility of nodule volume in the context of malignancy prediction for small pulmonary nodules.

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

4.  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

5.  Probability of cancer in pulmonary nodules detected on first screening CT.

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

Review 6.  Volume versus diameter assessment of small pulmonary nodules in CT lung cancer screening.

Authors:  Daiwei Han; Marjolein A Heuvelmans; Matthijs Oudkerk
Journal:  Transl Lung Cancer Res       Date:  2017-02

7.  Pulmonary Nodules: growth rate assessment in patients by using serial CT and three-dimensional volumetry.

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

8.  Lung cancers diagnosed at annual CT screening: volume doubling times.

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

9.  The Lung Image Database Consortium (LIDC) and Image Database Resource Initiative (IDRI): a completed reference database of lung nodules on CT scans.

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

10.  Limited contamination in the Dutch-Belgian randomized lung cancer screening trial (NELSON).

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

View more
  8 in total

1.  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

2.  Multivariate Analysis on Development of Lung Adenocarcinoma Lesion from Solitary Pulmonary Nodule.

Authors:  Linxiang Yu; Bin Zhang; Haosheng Zou; Yi Shi; Liang Cheng; Ying Zhang; Haiwen Zhen
Journal:  Contrast Media Mol Imaging       Date:  2022-05-24       Impact factor: 3.009

3.  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

4.  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

5.  QIN Benchmarks for Clinical Translation of Quantitative Imaging Tools.

Authors:  Keyvan Farahani; Darrell Tata; Robert J Nordstrom
Journal:  Tomography       Date:  2019-03

Review 6.  Implications of the updated Lung CT Screening Reporting and Data System (Lung-RADS version 1.1) for lung cancer screening.

Authors:  Spencer C Dyer; Brian J Bartholmai; Chi Wan Koo
Journal:  J Thorac Dis       Date:  2020-11       Impact factor: 2.895

7.  Prediction of future imagery of lung nodule as growth modeling with follow-up computed tomography scans using deep learning: a retrospective cohort study.

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

8.  Lung Nodule Malignancy Prediction in Sequential CT Scans: Summary of ISBI 2018 Challenge.

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

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.