Glioblastoma Segmentation: Comparison of Three Different Software Packages

To facilitate a more widespread use of volumetric tumor segmentation in clinical studies, there is an urgent need for reliable, user-friendly segmentation software. The aim of this study was therefore to compare three different software packages for semi-automatic brain tumor segmentation of glioblastoma; namely BrainVoyagerTM QX, ITK-Snap and 3D Slicer, and to make data available for future reference. Pre-operative, contrast enhanced T1-weighted 1.5 or 3 Tesla Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) scans were obtained in 20 consecutive patients who underwent surgery for glioblastoma. MRI scans were segmented twice in each software package by two investigators. Intra-rater, inter-rater and between-software agreement was compared by using differences of means with 95% limits of agreement (LoA), Dice’s similarity coefficients (DSC) and Hausdorff distance (HD). Time expenditure of segmentations was measured using a stopwatch. Eighteen tumors were included in the analyses. Inter-rater agreement was highest for BrainVoyager with difference of means of 0.19 mL and 95% LoA from -2.42 mL to 2.81 mL. Between-software agreement and 95% LoA were very similar for the different software packages. Intra-rater, inter-rater and between-software DSC were ≥ 0.93 in all analyses. Time expenditure was approximately 41 min per segmentation in BrainVoyager, and 18 min per segmentation in both 3D Slicer and ITK-Snap. Our main findings were that there is a high agreement within and between the software packages in terms of small intra-rater, inter-rater and between-software differences of means and high Dice’s similarity coefficients. Time expenditure was highest for BrainVoyager, but all software packages were relatively time-consuming, which may limit usability in an everyday clinical setting.

[1]  Rainer Goebel,et al.  Analysis of functional image analysis contest (FIAC) data with brainvoyager QX: From single‐subject to cortically aligned group general linear model analysis and self‐organizing group independent component analysis , 2006, Human brain mapping.

[2]  Steven R. Breault,et al.  Reproducibility of dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging. Part II. Comparison of intra- and interobserver variability with manual region of interest placement versus semiautomatic lesion segmentation and histogram analysis. , 2013, Radiology.

[3]  Tormod Selbekk,et al.  Ultrasound-guided operations in unselected high-grade gliomas—overall results, impact of image quality and patient selection , 2010, Acta Neurochirurgica.

[4]  L. Clarke,et al.  MRI measurement of brain tumor response: comparison of visual metric and automatic segmentation. , 1998, Magnetic resonance imaging.

[5]  M. Tovi,et al.  MR Imaging in Cerebral Gliomas , 1994, Acta radiologica.

[6]  Z L Gokaslan,et al.  A multivariate analysis of 416 patients with glioblastoma multiforme: prognosis, extent of resection, and survival. , 2001, Journal of neurosurgery.

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

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

[9]  M. Berger,et al.  Measurement of tumor resection volumes from computerized images. Technical note. , 1992, Journal of neurosurgery.

[10]  D. Altman,et al.  Measuring agreement in method comparison studies , 1999, Statistical methods in medical research.

[11]  F. Hausdorff Grundzüge der Mengenlehre , 1914 .

[12]  L. Schwartz,et al.  New response evaluation criteria in solid tumours: revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1). , 2009, European journal of cancer.

[13]  B A Kall,et al.  Imaging-based stereotaxic serial biopsies in untreated intracranial glial neoplasms. , 1987, Journal of neurosurgery.

[14]  Susan M. Chang,et al.  Updated response assessment criteria for high-grade gliomas: response assessment in neuro-oncology working group. , 2010, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[15]  Y. Matsukado,et al.  The growth of glioblastoma multiforme (astrocytomas, grades 3 and 4) in neurosurgical practice. , 1961, Journal of neurosurgery.

[16]  T. Cascino,et al.  Response criteria for phase II studies of supratentorial malignant glioma. , 1990, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[17]  R. Sawaya,et al.  Volumetric measurement of brain tumors from MR imaging , 2004, Journal of Neuro-Oncology.

[18]  L. R. Dice Measures of the Amount of Ecologic Association Between Species , 1945 .

[19]  T. Cloughesy,et al.  Contrast‐enhancing tumor growth dynamics of preoperative, treatment‐naive human glioblastoma , 2016, Cancer.

[20]  Bruce Fischl,et al.  Impact of MRI head placement on glioma response assessment , 2014, Journal of Neuro-Oncology.

[21]  P. Lambin,et al.  Robust Radiomics Feature Quantification Using Semiautomatic Volumetric Segmentation , 2014, PloS one.

[22]  Xuzhu Chen,et al.  Identifying the survival subtypes of glioblastoma by quantitative volumetric analysis of MRI , 2014, Journal of Neuro-Oncology.

[23]  Mitchel S Berger,et al.  An extent of resection threshold for newly diagnosed glioblastomas. , 2011, Journal of neurosurgery.

[24]  Christopher Nimsky,et al.  Correlation of the extent of tumor volume resection and patient survival in surgery of glioblastoma multiforme with high-field intraoperative MRI guidance. , 2011, Neuro-oncology.

[25]  H. Scherer,et al.  THE FORMS OF GROWTH IN GLIOMAS AND THEIR PRACTICAL SIGNIFICANCE , 1940 .

[26]  F. Zanella,et al.  Fluorescence-guided surgery with 5-aminolevulinic acid for resection of malignant glioma: a randomised controlled multicentre phase III trial. , 2006, The Lancet. Oncology.

[27]  P. Wen,et al.  Response criteria for glioma , 2008, Nature Clinical Practice Oncology.

[28]  D. Altman,et al.  STATISTICAL METHODS FOR ASSESSING AGREEMENT BETWEEN TWO METHODS OF CLINICAL MEASUREMENT , 1986, The Lancet.

[29]  Ole Solheim,et al.  Growth dynamics of untreated glioblastomas in vivo. , 2015, Neuro-oncology.

[30]  A. Beckett,et al.  AKUFO AND IBARAPA. , 1965, Lancet.

[31]  Mitchel S Berger,et al.  Regional variation in histopathologic features of tumor specimens from treatment-naive glioblastoma correlates with anatomic and physiologic MR Imaging. , 2012, Neuro-oncology.

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

[33]  Nelly Gordillo,et al.  State of the art survey on MRI brain tumor segmentation. , 2013, Magnetic resonance imaging.

[34]  Brian B. Avants,et al.  The Multimodal Brain Tumor Image Segmentation Benchmark (BRATS) , 2015, IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging.