Yip Stephen S F, Parmar Chintan, Blezek Daniel, Estepar Raul San Jose, Pieper Steve, Kim John, Aerts Hugo J W L
Department of Radiation Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Brigham and Women's Hospital, and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, United States of America.
Biomedical Engineering Department, Mayo Graduate School of Medicine Rochester, MN, United States of America.
PLoS One. 2017 Jun 8;12(6):e0178944. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0178944. eCollection 2017.
Accurate segmentation of lung nodules is crucial in the development of imaging biomarkers for predicting malignancy of the nodules. Manual segmentation is time consuming and affected by inter-observer variability. We evaluated the robustness and accuracy of a publically available semiautomatic segmentation algorithm that is implemented in the 3D Slicer Chest Imaging Platform (CIP) and compared it with the performance of manual segmentation.
CT images of 354 manually segmented nodules were downloaded from the LIDC database. Four radiologists performed the manual segmentation and assessed various nodule characteristics. The semiautomatic CIP segmentation was initialized using the centroid of the manual segmentations, thereby generating four contours for each nodule. The robustness of both segmentation methods was assessed using the region of uncertainty (δ) and Dice similarity index (DSI). The robustness of the segmentation methods was compared using the Wilcoxon-signed rank test (pWilcoxon<0.05). The Dice similarity index (DSIAgree) between the manual and CIP segmentations was computed to estimate the accuracy of the semiautomatic contours.
The median computational time of the CIP segmentation was 10 s. The median CIP and manually segmented volumes were 477 ml and 309 ml, respectively. CIP segmentations were significantly more robust than manual segmentations (median δCIP = 14ml, median dsiCIP = 99% vs. median δmanual = 222ml, median dsimanual = 82%) with pWilcoxon~10-16. The agreement between CIP and manual segmentations had a median DSIAgree of 60%. While 13% (47/354) of the nodules did not require any manual adjustment, minor to substantial manual adjustments were needed for 87% (305/354) of the nodules. CIP segmentations were observed to perform poorly (median DSIAgree≈50%) for non-/sub-solid nodules with subtle appearances and poorly defined boundaries.
Semi-automatic CIP segmentation can potentially reduce the physician workload for 13% of nodules owing to its computational efficiency and superior stability compared to manual segmentation. Although manual adjustment is needed for many cases, CIP segmentation provides a preliminary contour for physicians as a starting point.
肺结节的准确分割对于开发用于预测结节恶性程度的影像生物标志物至关重要。手动分割耗时且受观察者间差异的影响。我们评估了在3D Slicer胸部成像平台(CIP)中实现的一种公开可用的半自动分割算法的稳健性和准确性,并将其与手动分割的性能进行了比较。
从LIDC数据库下载了354个手动分割结节的CT图像。四名放射科医生进行了手动分割并评估了各种结节特征。使用手动分割的质心初始化半自动CIP分割,从而为每个结节生成四个轮廓。使用不确定区域(δ)和骰子相似性指数(DSI)评估两种分割方法的稳健性。使用Wilcoxon符号秩检验(pWilcoxon<0.05)比较分割方法的稳健性。计算手动分割和CIP分割之间的骰子相似性指数(DSIAgree)以估计半自动轮廓的准确性。
CIP分割的中位计算时间为10秒。CIP分割和手动分割的中位体积分别为477毫升和309毫升。CIP分割比手动分割明显更稳健(中位δCIP = 14毫升,中位dsiCIP = 99%,而中位δ手动 = 222毫升,中位dsimanual = 82%),pWilcoxon约为10-16。CIP分割和手动分割之间的一致性中位DSIAgree为60%。虽然13%(47/354)的结节不需要任何手动调整,但87%(305/354)的结节需要进行小到大幅度的手动调整。对于外观细微且边界不清的非实性/亚实性结节,观察到CIP分割表现不佳(中位DSIAgree≈50%)。
与手动分割相比,半自动CIP分割由于其计算效率和更高的稳定性,有可能减少13%的结节的医生工作量。尽管许多病例需要手动调整,但CIP分割为医生提供了一个初步轮廓作为起点。