Effect of Kernels Used for the Reconstruction of MDCT Datasets on the Semi-Automated Segmentation and Volumetry of Liver Lesions

 

 Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Purpose: To evaluate the effect of different reconstruction kernels on the semi-automated segmentation of liver lesions in MDCT.

Materials and Methods: A total 62 liver lesions were measured by three independent radiologists with the semi-automated segmentation software Oncology-Prototype (Fraunhofer MEVIS, Siemens Healthcare, Germany) using MDCT datasets (3-mm slice thickness, 2-mm increment) reconstructed with standard, soft and detailed kernels (Philips B, A and D). To ensure objective measurements, only lesions with satisfactory initial segmentation were included, and manual correction was not used. The effective diameter and volume were recorded for each lesion. Segmentation in the soft and detailed kernel datasets was performed by copying the initial seed's position from the standard kernel dataset.

Results: The mean effective lesion diameter was 19.9 ± 9.7 mm using the standard kernel. Comparing the three kernels, no significant differences were found. The mean difference was 1 % ± 6 % for the standard kernel compared to the soft kernel, 3 % ± 13 % for the standard kernel vs. the detailed kernel and 2 % ± 9 % for the soft kernel compared to the detailed kernel. The intra-class correlation coefficients were > 0.96 in all cases.

Conclusion: The semi-automated segmentation and volumetry of liver lesions shows reliable measurements regardless of the kernel used for reconstruction of the MDCT dataset.

Key Points:

• Semi-automated segmentation and volumetry of liver lesions is reliable regardless of the kernel used for reconstruction of the MDCT dataset.

• Until today the gold standard for the evaluation of tumor response has been unidimensional manual measurement.

• Volumetric measurements could improve the assessment of tumor growth.

Citation Format:

• Pinto dos Santos D, Klöckner R, Wunder K et al. Effect of Kernels Used for the Reconstruction of MDCT Datasets on the Semi-Automated Segmentation and Volumetry of Liver Lesions. Fortschr Röntgenstr 2014; 186: 780 – 784

Zusammenfassung

Ziel: Untersuchung der Auswirkungen verschiedener Rekonstruktionkernel auf die halbautomatische Segmentierung von Leberläsionen in der MDCT.

Material und Methoden: Insgesamt 62 Leberläsionen wurden durch drei unabhängige Radiologen mithilfe der Oncology-Prototype Segmentierungssoftware (Fraunhofer MEVIS, Siemens Healthcare, Germany) halbautomatisch vermessen. Die verwendeten CT-Datensätze waren jeweils mittels standard, soft und detailed (Philips B, A and D) Kernel rekonstruiert worden. Um eine objektive Messung sicherzustellen wurden nur Läsionen eingeschlossen, deren initiale Segmentierung zufriedenstellend war, manuelle Korrekturen wurden nicht vorgenommen. Effektiver Durchmesser und Volumen wurde für alle Läsionen erhoben. Die Segmentierung in den mittels soft und detailed Kernel rekonstruierten Datensätzen wurde durch Kopieren der Seedposition aus dem Standardkernel Datensatz vorgenommen.

Ergebnisse: Der mittlere effektive Läsionsdurchmesser betrug bei Verwendung des Standardkernels 19,9 ± 9,7 mm. Der Vergleich aller drei Kernel untereinander zeigte keine signifikanten Unterschiede. Der mittlere Unterschied zwischen standard und soft Kernel betrug 1 % ± 6 %, zwischen standard und detailed 3 % ± 13 % und zwischen soft und detailed 2 % ± 9 %. Die Intra-Klassen-Korrelationskoeffizienten lagen für alle Vergleiche bei > 0,96.

Schlussfolgerung: Die halbautomatische Segmentierung und Volumetrie von Leberläsionen zeigt verlässliche Messungen unabhängig von dem zur Rekonstruktion der MDCT-Datensätze verwandten Kernel.

Kernaussagen:

• Die halbautomatische Segmentierung und Volumetrie von Leberläsionen is verlässlich unabhängig von dem zur Rekonstruktion der MDCT-Datensätze verwandten Kernel.

• Bis heute ist der Gold-Standard zur Evaluation von Tumoransprechen die manuelle unidimensionale Messung.

• Volumetrische Messungen könnten die Beurteilung von Tumorwachstum verbessern.

• References

• 1 Eisenhauer EA et al. New response evaluation criteria in solid tumours: revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1). Eur J Cancer 2009; 45: 228-247
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 2 Therasse P. European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer, National Cancer Institute of the United States, National Cancer Institute of Canada. et al. New guidelines to evaluate the response to treatment in solid tumors. J Natl Cancer Inst 2000; 92: 205-216
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 3 Marten K et al. Inadequacy of manual measurements compared to automated CT volumetry in assessment of treatment response of pulmonary metastases using RECIST criteria. Eur Radiol 2006; 16: 781-790
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 4 Prasad SR et al. CT tumor measurement for therapeutic response assessment: comparison of unidimensional, bidimensional, and volumetric techniques initial observations. Radiology 2002; 225: 416-419
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 5 Bornemann L et al. OncoTREAT: a software assistant for cancer therapy monitoring. International Journal of Computer Assisted Radiology and Surgery 2007; 1: 231-242
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 6 Fabel M et al. Semi-automated volumetric analysis of lymph node metastases in patients with malignant melanoma stage III/IV--a feasibility study. Eur Radiol 2008; 18: 1114-1122
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 7 Dornheim J et al. Segmentation of neck lymph nodes in CT datasets with stable 3D mass-spring models segmentation of neck lymph nodes. Acad Radiol 2007; 14: 1389-1399
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 8 Wessling J et al. MSCT follow-up in malignant lymphoma: comparison of manual linear measurements with semi-automated lymph node analysis for therapy response classification. Fortschr Röntgenstr 2012; 184: 795-804
  Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 9 Das M et al. Accuracy of automated volumetry of pulmonary nodules across different multislice CT scanners. Eur Radiol 2007; 17: 1979-1984
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 10 Heussel CP et al. Quantitative CT-Verlaufskontrolle von Lebermalignomen nach RECIST und WHO im Vergleich zur Volumetrie. Fortschr Röntgenstr 2007; 179: 958-964
  Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 11 Puesken M et al. Einfluss des vaskularisationsgrades auf die automatische segmentierung und messung von lebertumoren nach RECIST in einer biphasischen multi-slice-CT (MSCT). Fortschr Röntgenstr 2009; 181: 67-73
  Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 12 Wulff AM et al. Lung, liver and lymph node metastases in follow-up MSCT: comprehensive volumetric assessment of lesion size changes. Fortschr Röntgenstr 2012; 184: 820-828
  Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 13 Kalkmann J et al. Suitability of semi-automated tumor response assessment of liver metastases using a dedicated software package. Fortschr Röntgenstr 2010; 182: 581-588
  Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 14 Puesken M et al. Liver lesion segmentation in MSCT: effect of slice thickness on segmentation quality, measurement precision and interobserver variability. Fortschr Röntgenstr 2011; 183: 372-380
  Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 15 Keil S et al. Semi-automated quantification of hepatic lesions in a phantom. Invest Radiol 2009; 44: 82-88
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 16 Moltz JH et al. Advanced Segmentation Techniques for Lung Nodules, Liver Metastases, and Enlarged Lymph Nodes in CT Scans. Selected Topics in Signal Processing, IEEE J-STSP 2009; 3: 122-134
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 17 Kwiecien R, Kopp-Schneider A, Blettner M. Concordance analysis: part 16 of a series on evaluation of scientific publications. Dtsch Arztebl Int 2011; 108: 515-521
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 18 Koch R, Sporl E. Statistische Verfahren zum Vergleich zweier Messmethoden und zur Kalibrierung: Konkordanz-, Korrelations- und Regressionsanalyse am Beispiel der Augeninnendruckmessung. Klin Monbl Augenheilkd 2007; 224: 52-57
  Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 19 Koshariya M et al. An update and our experience with metastatic liver disease. Hepatogastroenterology 2007; 54: 2232-2239
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 20 Harris KM et al. The effect on apparent size of simulated pulmonary nodules of using three standard CT window settings. Clin Radiol 1993; 47: 241-244
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 21 Erasmus JJ et al. Interobserver and intraobserver variability in measurement of non-small-cell carcinoma lung lesions: implications for assessment of tumor response. J Clin Oncol 2003; 21: 2574-2582
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 22 Zhao B et al. A pilot study of volume measurement as a method of tumor response evaluation to aid biomarker development. Clin Cancer Res 2010; 16: 4647-4653
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 23 Liu F et al. Assessment of therapy responses and prediction of survival in malignant pleural mesothelioma through computer-aided volumetric measurement on computed tomography scans. J Thorac Oncol 2010; 5: 879-884
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 24 Jaffe CC. Measures of response: RECIST, WHO, and new alternatives. J Clin Oncol 2006; 24: 3245-3251
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar