Manual and semiautomatic segmentation of bone sarcomas on MRI have high similarity

The aims of this study were to evaluate the intra- and interobserver reproducibility of manual segmentation of bone sarcomas in magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) studies and to compare manual and semiautomatic segmentation methods. This retrospective study included twelve osteosarcoma and eight Ewing sarcoma MRI studies performed prior to any therapeutic intervention. All cases were histopathologically confirmed. Three radiologists used 3D-Slicer software to perform manual segmentation of bone sarcomas in a blinded and independent manner. One radiologist segmented manually and also performed semiautomatic segmentation with the GrowCut tool. Segmentation exercises were timed for comparison. The dice similarity coefficient (DSC) and Hausdorff distance (HD) were used to evaluate similarity between the segmentation results and further statistical analyses were performed to compare DSC, HD, and volumetric results. Manual segmentation was reproducible with intraobserver DSC varying from 0.83 to 0.97 and HD from 3.37 to 28.73 mm. Interobserver DSC of manual segmentation showed variation from 0.73 to 0.97 and HD from 3.93 to 33.40 mm. Semiautomatic segmentation compared to manual segmentation resulted in DSCs of 0.71−0.96 and HDs of 5.38−31.54 mm. Semiautomatic segmentation required significantly less time compared to manual segmentation (P value ≤0.05). Among all situations compared, tumor volumetry did not show significant statistical differences (P value >0.05). We found excellent intra- and interobserver agreement for manual segmentation of osteosarcoma and Ewing sarcoma. There was high similarity between manual and semiautomatic segmentation, with a significant reduction of segmentation time using the semiautomatic method.

[1]  Paul Kinahan,et al.  Radiomics: Images Are More than Pictures, They Are Data , 2015, Radiology.

[2]  H. Murshed Sarcomas. , 1989, Current opinion in oncology.

[3]  R. Steen,et al.  Fat‐saturated contrast‐enhanced T1‐weighted MRI in evaluation of osteosarcoma and ewing sarcoma , 1997, Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI.

[4]  A. Kulidjian,et al.  Osteosarcoma: a comprehensive review , 2018, SICOT-J.

[5]  R. Colen,et al.  Radiomics in Brain Tumors: An Emerging Technique for Characterization of Tumor Environment. , 2016, Magnetic resonance imaging clinics of North America.

[6]  J. R. Landis,et al.  The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. , 1977, Biometrics.

[7]  Ron Kikinis,et al.  Statistical validation of image segmentation quality based on a spatial overlap index. , 2004, Academic radiology.

[8]  S. Kapoor,et al.  Evaluation of bone tumors with magnetic resonance imaging and correlation with surgical and gross pathological findings , 2006 .

[9]  Allan Hanbury,et al.  Metrics for evaluating 3D medical image segmentation: analysis, selection, and tool , 2015, BMC Medical Imaging.

[10]  Dimitrios I. Fotiadis,et al.  Machine learning applications in cancer prognosis and prediction , 2014, Computational and structural biotechnology journal.

[11]  J. Bloem,et al.  Radiologic staging of primary bone sarcoma: MR imaging, scintigraphy, angiography, and CT correlated with pathologic examination. , 1988, Radiology.

[12]  Ron Kikinis,et al.  Volumetric CT-based segmentation of NSCLC using 3D-Slicer , 2013, Scientific Reports.

[13]  M. H. Nogueira-Barbosa,et al.  Ressonância magnética na avaliação das reações periosteais , 2010 .

[14]  K. S. Hall,et al.  Bone sarcomas: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. , 2015, Annals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology.

[15]  Christopher Nimsky,et al.  Pituitary Adenoma Volumetry with 3D Slicer , 2012, PloS one.

[16]  James V. Miller,et al.  GBM Volumetry using the 3D Slicer Medical Image Computing Platform , 2013, Scientific Reports.

[17]  L. Fayad,et al.  Musculoskeletal tumors: how to use anatomic, functional, and metabolic MR techniques. , 2012, Radiology.

[18]  Benoit M. Dawant,et al.  Morphometric analysis of white matter lesions in MR images: method and validation , 1994, IEEE Trans. Medical Imaging.

[19]  Y. Liu,et al.  Histopathological findings in the peritumoral edema area of human glioma. , 2015, Histology and Histopathology.

[20]  L. White,et al.  Histologic assessment of peritumoral edema in soft tissue sarcoma. , 2005, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[21]  Márcio Sarroglia Pinho,et al.  Automated Methods for Hippocampus Segmentation: the Evolution and a Review of the State of the Art , 2014, Neuroinformatics.

[22]  M. Nogueira-Barbosa,et al.  Diagnostic performance of magnetic resonance imaging in the assessment of periosteal reactions in bone sarcomas using conventional radiography as the reference , 2017, Radiologia brasileira.

[23]  A. Saifuddin,et al.  Radiological appearances of appendicular osteosarcoma: a comprehensive pictorial review. , 2007, Clinical radiology.

[24]  M. Sundaram,et al.  MR imaging of tumor and tumorlike lesions of bone and soft tissue. , 1990, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[25]  Sean D. McGarry,et al.  Magnetic Resonance Imaging-Based Radiomic Profiles Predict Patient Prognosis in Newly Diagnosed Glioblastoma Before Therapy , 2016, Tomography.

[26]  Hyunkwang Lee,et al.  Artificial intelligence-assisted interpretation of bone age radiographs improves accuracy and decreases variability , 2018, Skeletal Radiology.

[27]  Armando de Abreu,et al.  The role of magnetic resonance imaging in the evaluation of bone tumours and tumour-like lesions , 2014, Insights into Imaging.

[28]  J. Bartko Measurement and reliability: statistical thinking considerations. , 1991, Schizophrenia bulletin.

[29]  E. V. van Beek,et al.  Radiomics and its emerging role in lung cancer research, imaging biomarkers and clinical management: State of the art. , 2017, European journal of radiology.

[30]  R. Clark,et al.  MR imaging of periosteal and cortical changes of bone. , 1991, Radiographics : a review publication of the Radiological Society of North America, Inc.

[31]  M. Nogueira-Barbosa,et al.  Magnetic resonance imaging in the evaluation of periosteal reactions * , 2010 .

[32]  Erich P Huang,et al.  MR Imaging Radiomics Signatures for Predicting the Risk of Breast Cancer Recurrence as Given by Research Versions of MammaPrint, Oncotype DX, and PAM50 Gene Assays. , 2016, Radiology.

[33]  Robert J. Gillies,et al.  Prediction of treatment outcome in soft tissue sarcoma based on radiologically defined habitats , 2015, Medical Imaging.

[34]  L. Martí-Bonmatí,et al.  Comparison of plain radiographs and magnetic resonance images in the evaluation of periosteal reaction and osteoid matrix in osteosarcomas , 1999, Magnetic Resonance Materials in Physics, Biology and Medicine.

[35]  R. Gillies,et al.  Diffusion MRI and Novel Texture Analysis in Osteosarcoma Xenotransplants Predicts Response to Anti-Checkpoint Therapy , 2013, PloS one.

[36]  Abhijit J Chaudhari,et al.  Semi-automated volumetric quantification of tumor necrosis in soft tissue sarcoma using contrast-enhanced MRI. , 2012, Anticancer research.

[37]  Xin Huang,et al.  Survival Prediction in High-grade Osteosarcoma Using Radiomics of Diagnostic Computed Tomography , 2018, EBioMedicine.