Rapid Contour-based Segmentation for 18F-FDG PET Imaging of Lung Tumors by Using ITK-SNAP: Comparison to Expert-based Segmentation.

Purpose To assess the performance of the ITK-SNAP software for fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) positron emission tomography (PET) segmentation of complex-shaped lung tumors compared with an optimized, expert-based manual reference standard. Materials and Methods Seventy-six FDG PET images of thoracic lesions were retrospectively segmented by using ITK-SNAP software. Each tumor was manually segmented by six raters to generate an optimized reference standard by using the simultaneous truth and performance level estimate algorithm. Four raters segmented 76 FDG PET images of lung tumors twice by using ITK-SNAP active contour algorithm. Accuracy of ITK-SNAP procedure was assessed by using Dice coefficient and Hausdorff metric. Interrater and intrarater reliability were estimated by using intraclass correlation coefficients of output volumes. Finally, the ITK-SNAP procedure was compared with currently recommended PET tumor delineation methods on the basis of thresholding at 41% volume of interest (VOI; VOI41) and 50% VOI (VOI50) of the tumor's maximal metabolism intensity. Results Accuracy estimates for the ITK-SNAP procedure indicated a Dice coefficient of 0.83 (95% confidence interval: 0.77, 0.89) and a Hausdorff distance of 12.6 mm (95% confidence interval: 9.82, 15.32). Interrater reliability was an intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.94 (95% confidence interval: 0.91, 0.96). The intrarater reliabilities were intraclass correlation coefficients above 0.97. Finally, VOI41 and VOI50 accuracy metrics were as follows: Dice coefficient, 0.48 (95% confidence interval: 0.44, 0.51) and 0.34 (95% confidence interval: 0.30, 0.38), respectively, and Hausdorff distance, 25.6 mm (95% confidence interval: 21.7, 31.4) and 31.3 mm (95% confidence interval: 26.8, 38.4), respectively. Conclusion ITK-SNAP is accurate and reliable for active-contour-based segmentation of heterogeneous thoracic PET tumors. ITK-SNAP surpassed the recommended PET methods compared with ground truth manual segmentation.

[1]  Wei Lu,et al.  Toward a standard for the evaluation of PET‐Auto‐Segmentation methods following the recommendations of AAPM task group No. 211: Requirements and implementation , 2017, Medical physics.

[2]  Habib Zaidi,et al.  Classification and evaluation strategies of auto‐segmentation approaches for PET: Report of AAPM task group No. 211 , 2017, Medical physics.

[3]  Maximilien Vermandel,et al.  Is STAPLE algorithm confident to assess segmentation methods in PET imaging? , 2015, Physics in medicine and biology.

[4]  L. Massoptier,et al.  Impact of consensus contours from multiple PET segmentation methods on the accuracy of functional volume delineation , 2015, European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging.

[5]  Michalis Aristophanous,et al.  A multimodality segmentation framework for automatic target delineation in head and neck radiotherapy. , 2015, Medical physics.

[6]  Eric J. W. Visser,et al.  FDG PET/CT: EANM procedure guidelines for tumour imaging: version 2.0 , 2014, European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging.

[7]  G. Parker,et al.  Imaging Intratumor Heterogeneity: Role in Therapy Response, Resistance, and Clinical Outcome , 2014, Clinical Cancer Research.

[8]  Ulas Bagci,et al.  A review on segmentation of positron emission tomography images , 2014, Comput. Biol. Medicine.

[9]  D. Bates,et al.  Fitting Linear Mixed-Effects Models Using lme4 , 2014, 1406.5823.

[10]  S. Baylin,et al.  Cancer epigenetics: tumor heterogeneity, plasticity of stem-like states, and drug resistance. , 2014, Molecular cell.

[11]  H Zaidi,et al.  Contourlet-based active contour model for PET image segmentation. , 2013, Medical physics.

[12]  C. Rübe,et al.  PET-based delineation of tumour volumes in lung cancer: comparison with pathological findings , 2013, European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging.

[13]  Milan Sonka,et al.  3D Slicer as an image computing platform for the Quantitative Imaging Network. , 2012, Magnetic resonance imaging.

[14]  P. A. Futreal,et al.  Intratumor heterogeneity and branched evolution revealed by multiregion sequencing. , 2012, The New England journal of medicine.

[15]  Patrick Granton,et al.  Radiomics: extracting more information from medical images using advanced feature analysis. , 2012, European journal of cancer.

[16]  Issam El Naqa,et al.  Tools for consensus analysis of experts' contours for radiotherapy structure definitions. , 2010, Radiotherapy and oncology : journal of the European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology.

[17]  F Hofheinz,et al.  Effects of cold sphere walls in PET phantom measurements on the volume reproducing threshold , 2010, Physics in medicine and biology.

[18]  Issam El Naqa,et al.  Development of RTOG consensus guidelines for the definition of the clinical target volume for postoperative conformal radiation therapy for prostate cancer. , 2010, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[19]  Issam El Naqa,et al.  Elective clinical target volumes for conformal therapy in anorectal cancer: a radiation therapy oncology group consensus panel contouring atlas. , 2009, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[20]  C. Ménard,et al.  RTOG GU Radiation oncology specialists reach consensus on pelvic lymph node volumes for high-risk prostate cancer. , 2009, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[21]  Chung-Ming Chen,et al.  Automatic segmentation of liver PET images , 2008, Comput. Medical Imaging Graph..

[22]  G Loi,et al.  Threshold segmentation for PET target volume delineation in radiation treatment planning: the role of target-to-background ratio and target size. , 2008, Medical physics.

[23]  Nico Karssemeijer,et al.  A novel iterative method for lesion delineation and volumetric quantification with FDG PET , 2007, Nuclear medicine communications.

[24]  Andreas Bockisch,et al.  Segmentation of PET volumes by iterative image thresholding. , 2007, Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine.

[25]  Anne Bol,et al.  A gradient-based method for segmenting FDG-PET images: methodology and validation , 2007, European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging.

[26]  Sasa Mutic,et al.  18F-FDG PET definition of gross tumor volume for radiotherapy of non-small cell lung cancer: is a single standardized uptake value threshold approach appropriate? , 2006, Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine.

[27]  Guido Gerig,et al.  User-guided 3D active contour segmentation of anatomical structures: Significantly improved efficiency and reliability , 2006, NeuroImage.

[28]  Wilson Roa,et al.  A local contrast based approach to threshold segmentation for PET target volume delineation. , 2006, Medical physics.

[29]  C. Rübe,et al.  Comparison of different methods for delineation of 18F-FDG PET-positive tissue for target volume definition in radiotherapy of patients with non-Small cell lung cancer. , 2005, Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine.

[30]  William M. Wells,et al.  Simultaneous truth and performance level estimation (STAPLE): an algorithm for the validation of image segmentation , 2004, IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging.

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

[32]  Di Yan,et al.  Defining a radiotherapy target with positron emission tomography. , 2002, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[33]  S M Larson,et al.  Segmentation of lung lesion volume by adaptive positron emission tomography image thresholding , 1997, Cancer.

[34]  M. King,et al.  SPECT volume quantitation: influence of spatial resolution, source size and shape, and voxel size. , 1991, Medical physics.

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