左心室和右心室心脏电影磁共振图像的分割：交互式半自动方法以及由两名教育背景和经验不同的读者进行手动轮廓描绘。

Segmentation of cardiac cine MR images of left and right ventricles: interactive semiautomated methods and manual contouring by two readers with different education and experience.

作者信息

Sardanelli Francesco, Quarenghi Matteo, Di Leo Giovanni, Boccaccini Leonardo, Schiavi Angelo

机构信息

Department of Medical and Surgical Sciences, Istituto di Ricovero e Cura a Carattere Scientifico (IRCCS), Policlinico San Donato, University of Milan School of Medicine, San Donato Milanese, Milan, Italy.

出版信息

J Magn Reson Imaging. 2008 Apr;27(4):785-92. doi: 10.1002/jmri.21292.

DOI:10.1002/jmri.21292

PMID:18302202

Abstract

PURPOSE

To test interactive semiautomated methods (ISAM) vs. manual contouring (MC) in segmenting cardiac cine MR images.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Short-axis images of 10 consecutive patients (1.5-81.5 years of age) were evaluated by a trained radiologist (R1) and a low-trained engineer (R2). Each of them performed four independent reading sessions: two using ISAM and two using MC. Left ventricle (LV) myocardial mass (LVMM), LV ejection fraction (LVEF), and right ventricle (RV) ejection fraction (RVEF) were obtained. Bland-Altman analysis and Wilcoxon test were used.

RESULTS

The bias +/- 2 standard deviations (SD) of ISAM vs. MC for LVMM (g) was -5.7 +/- 13.4 (R1) and -5.5 +/- 26.3 (R2); for LVEF (%) it was -1.4 +/- 13.0 and -2.9 +/- and 6.8; for RVEF (%) it was 2.6 +/- 17.0 and 1.0 +/- 16.7. Considering both readers/methods, intraobserver bias +/- 2 SD ranged from 0.3 +/- 25.3 to -6.8 +/- 23.0, from 0.2 +/- 8.0 to -4.4 +/- 15.8, and from -0.0 +/- 26.4 to -4.6 +/- 27.8, respectively. Interobserver bias +/- 2 SD was -25.9 +/- 46.0 (ISAM) and 26.1 +/- 36.4 (MC), -1.4 +/- 8.6 (ISAM) and 0.1 +/- 17.9 (MC), and 0.7 +/- 23.3 and 2.3 +/- 29.8, respectively. Larger SDs were systematically found for RVEF vs. LVEF. Segmentation times: five minutes for LV with ISAM (both readers); for LV with MC, six (R1) vs. nine minutes (R2) (P < 0.001); five to six minutes for RV (both methods /readers). R2 significantly reduced LV segmentation times from nine (MC) to five minutes (ISAM) (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

A highly reproducible LV segmentation was performed in a short time by R1. The advantage of ISAM vs. MC for LV segmentation was a time saving only for R2. For RVEF, a lower reproducibility was observed for both methods and readers.

摘要

目的

在分割心脏电影磁共振图像时，测试交互式半自动方法（ISAM）与手动轮廓描绘（MC）。

材料与方法

由一名训练有素的放射科医生（R1）和一名经验较少的工程师（R2）对10名连续患者（年龄1.5 - 81.5岁）的短轴图像进行评估。他们每人都进行了四个独立的读取环节：两个使用ISAM，两个使用MC。获取左心室（LV）心肌质量（LVMM）、左心室射血分数（LVEF）和右心室（RV）射血分数（RVEF）。采用布兰德 - 奥特曼分析和威尔科克森检验。

结果

对于LVMM（克），ISAM与MC相比的偏差±2标准差（SD），R1为 - 5.7±13.4，R2为 - 5.5±26.3；对于LVEF（%），分别为 - 1.4±13.0和 - 2.9±6.8；对于RVEF（%），分别为2.6±17.0和1.0±16.7。综合两位读者/两种方法来看，观察者内偏差±2 SD分别在0.3±25.3至 - 6.8±23.0之间、0.2±8.0至 - 4.4±15.8之间以及 - 0.0±26.4至 - 4.6±27.8之间。观察者间偏差±2 SD，ISAM为 - 25.9±46.0，MC为26.1±36.4；ISAM为 - 1.4±8.6，MC为0.1±17.9；分别为0.7±23.3和2.3±29.8。与LVEF相比，RVEF的标准差普遍更大。分割时间：使用ISAM时，两位读者分割LV均需5分钟；使用MC时，R1分割LV需6分钟，R2需9分钟（P < 0.001）；分割RV（两种方法/读者）需5至6分钟。R2将LV分割时间从9分钟（MC）显著缩短至5分钟（ISAM）（P < 0.001）。