Athelogou Maria, Kim Hyun J, Dima Alden, Obuchowski Nancy, Peskin Adele, Gavrielides Marios A, Petrick Nicholas, Saiprasad Ganesh, Colditz Colditz Dirk, Beaumont Hubert, Oubel Estanislao, Tan Yongqiang, Zhao Binsheng, Kuhnigk Jan-Martin, Moltz Jan Hendrik, Orieux Guillaume, Gillies Robert J, Gu Yuhua, Mantri Ninad, Goldmacher Gregory, Zhang Luduan, Vega Emilio, Bloom Michael, Jarecha Rudresh, Soza Grzegorz, Tietjen Christian, Takeguchi Tomoyuki, Yamagata Hitoshi, Peterson Sam, Masoud Osama, Buckler Andrew J
Definiens AG, Bernhard-Wicki Str 5, 80636 Munich, Germany.
UCLA, Center for Computer Vision and Imaging Biomarkers, Dept. of Radiological Sciences David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA Dept. of Biostatistics Fielding School of Public at UCLA, Los Angeles, USA.
Acad Radiol. 2016 Aug;23(8):940-52. doi: 10.1016/j.acra.2016.02.018. Epub 2016 May 20.
Quantifying changes in lung tumor volume is important for diagnosis, therapy planning, and evaluation of response to therapy. The aim of this study was to assess the performance of multiple algorithms on a reference data set. The study was organized by the Quantitative Imaging Biomarker Alliance (QIBA).
The study was organized as a public challenge. Computed tomography scans of synthetic lung tumors in an anthropomorphic phantom were acquired by the Food and Drug Administration. Tumors varied in size, shape, and radiodensity. Participants applied their own semi-automated volume estimation algorithms that either did not allow or allowed post-segmentation correction (type 1 or 2, respectively). Statistical analysis of accuracy (percent bias) and precision (repeatability and reproducibility) was conducted across algorithms, as well as across nodule characteristics, slice thickness, and algorithm type.
Eighty-four percent of volume measurements of QIBA-compliant tumors were within 15% of the true volume, ranging from 66% to 93% across algorithms, compared to 61% of volume measurements for all tumors (ranging from 37% to 84%). Algorithm type did not affect bias substantially; however, it was an important factor in measurement precision. Algorithm precision was notably better as tumor size increased, worse for irregularly shaped tumors, and on the average better for type 1 algorithms. Over all nodules meeting the QIBA Profile, precision, as measured by the repeatability coefficient, was 9.0% compared to 18.4% overall.
The results achieved in this study, using a heterogeneous set of measurement algorithms, support QIBA quantitative performance claims in terms of volume measurement repeatability for nodules meeting the QIBA Profile criteria.
量化肺肿瘤体积变化对于诊断、治疗方案规划及治疗反应评估至关重要。本研究旨在评估多种算法在一个参考数据集上的性能。该研究由定量影像生物标志物联盟(QIBA)组织。
本研究组织为一项公开挑战。美国食品药品监督管理局获取了拟人化体模中合成肺肿瘤的计算机断层扫描图像。肿瘤在大小、形状和放射密度方面存在差异。参与者应用了他们自己的半自动体积估计算法,这些算法要么不允许(分别为1型)要么允许(分别为2型)分割后校正。对算法之间以及结节特征、切片厚度和算法类型之间的准确性(偏差百分比)和精密度(重复性和再现性)进行了统计分析。
符合QIBA标准的肿瘤体积测量值中,84%在真实体积的15%以内,各算法的范围为66%至93%,而所有肿瘤体积测量值的这一比例为61%(范围为37%至84%)。算法类型对偏差影响不大;然而,它是测量精密度的一个重要因素。随着肿瘤大小增加,算法精密度显著提高,对于形状不规则的肿瘤精密度较差,总体而言1型算法的精密度更好。在所有符合QIBA标准的结节中,通过重复性系数测量的精密度为9.0%,而总体为18.4%。
本研究使用一组异质的测量算法所取得的结果,在符合QIBA标准的结节体积测量重复性方面,支持了QIBA的定量性能声明。