Semiautomatic volumetric tumor segmentation for hepatocellular carcinoma: comparison between C-arm cone beam computed tomography and MRI.

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES To evaluate the precision and reproducibility of a semiautomatic tumor segmentation software in measuring tumor volume of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) before the first transarterial chemo-embolization (TACE) on contrast-enhancement magnetic resonance imaging (CE-MRI) and intraprocedural dual-phase C-arm cone beam computed tomography (DP-CBCT) images. MATERIALS AND METHODS Nineteen HCCs were targeted in 19 patients (one per patient) who underwent baseline diagnostic CE-MRI and an intraprocedural DP-CBCT. The images were obtained from CE-MRI (arterial phase of an intravenous contrast medium injection) and DP-CBCT (delayed phase of an intra-arterial contrast medium injection) before the actual embolization. Three readers measured tumor volumes using a semiautomatic three-dimensional volumetric segmentation software that used a region-growing method employing non-Euclidean radial basis functions. Segmentation time and spatial position were recorded. The tumor volume measurements between image sets were compared using linear regression and Student's t-test, and evaluated with intraclass-correlation analysis (ICC). The inter-rater Dice similarity coefficient (DSC) assessed the segmentation spatial localization. RESULTS All 19 HCCs were analyzed. On CE-MRI and DP-CBCT examinations, respectively, 1) the mean segmented tumor volumes were 87 ± 8 cm(3) (2-873) and 92 ± 10 cm(3) (1-954), with no statistical difference of segmented volumes by readers of each tumor between the two imaging modalities and the mean time required for segmentation was 66 ± 45 seconds (21-173) and 85 ± 34 seconds (17-214) (P = .19); 2) the ICCs were 0.99 and 0.974, showing a strong correlation among readers; and 3) the inter-rater DSCs showed a good to excellent inter-user agreement on the spatial localization of the tumor segmentation (0.70 ± 0.07 and 0.74 ± 0.05, P = .07). CONCLUSION This study shows a strong correlation, a high precision, and excellent reproducibility of semiautomatic tumor segmentation software in measuring tumor volume on CE-MRI and DP-CBCT images. The use of the segmentation software on DP-CBCT and CE-MRI can be a valuable and highly accurate tool to measure the volume of hepatic tumors.

[1]  J. Bruix,et al.  Management of hepatocellular carcinoma , 2005, Hepatology.

[2]  J M Bland,et al.  Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement , 1986 .

[3]  Benoit Mory,et al.  Quantitative and volumetric European Association for the Study of the Liver and Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors measurements: feasibility of a semiautomated software method to assess tumor response after transcatheter arterial chemoembolization. , 2012, Journal of vascular and interventional radiology : JVIR.

[4]  Vladimir Pekar,et al.  Auto-segmentation of normal and target structures in head and neck CT images: a feature-driven model-based approach. , 2011, Medical physics.

[5]  L. Schumm,et al.  Tumor size on computed tomography scans , 2001, Cancer.

[6]  I. Kamel,et al.  Assessment of tumor response on MR imaging after locoregional therapy. , 2006, Techniques in vascular and interventional radiology.

[7]  J. Han,et al.  Hepatocellular carcinoma: evaluation of therapeutic response to interventional procedures , 2002, Abdominal Imaging.

[8]  Martin Styner,et al.  Comparison and Evaluation of Methods for Liver Segmentation From CT Datasets , 2009, IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging.

[9]  David A Bluemke,et al.  Unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma: serial early vascular and cellular changes after transarterial chemoembolization as detected with MR imaging. , 2009, Radiology.

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

[11]  Jean-Philippe Thiran,et al.  Non-Euclidean image-adaptive Radial Basis Functions for 3D interactive segmentation , 2009, 2009 IEEE 12th International Conference on Computer Vision.

[12]  Osamu Matsui,et al.  Detection of Corona Enhancement of Hypervascular Hepatocellular Carcinoma by C-Arm Dual-Phase Cone-Beam CT During Hepatic Arteriography , 2011, CardioVascular and Interventional Radiology.

[13]  M. van Glabbeke,et al.  New guidelines to evaluate the response to treatment in solid tumors , 2000, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[14]  A. Sundin,et al.  Interobserver and intraobserver variability in the response evaluation of cancer therapy according to RECIST and WHO-criteria , 2010, Acta oncologica.

[15]  M. Okada,et al.  [New response evaluation criteria in solid tumours-revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1)]. , 2009, Gan to kagaku ryoho. Cancer & chemotherapy.

[16]  Alessandro Radaelli,et al.  Comparing the Detectability of Hepatocellular Carcinoma by C-Arm Dual-Phase Cone-Beam Computed Tomography During Hepatic Arteriography With Conventional Contrast-Enhanced Magnetic Resonance Imaging , 2012, CardioVascular and Interventional Radiology.

[17]  Benoit Mory,et al.  Comparison of semi-automatic volumetric VX2 hepatic tumor segmentation from cone beam CT and multi-detector CT with histology in rabbit models. , 2013, Academic radiology.

[18]  Jordi Rimola,et al.  Evaluation of tumor response after locoregional therapies in hepatocellular carcinoma , 2009, Cancer.

[19]  Alessandro Radaelli,et al.  Intra-Procedural C-Arm Dual-Phase Cone-Beam CT Imaging to Predict Response of Hepatocellular Carcinoma During Drug-Eluting Beads Transcatheter Arterial Chemoembolization , 2011 .

[20]  Nobuyuki Takahashi,et al.  Triple arterial phase dynamic MRI with sensitivity encoding for hypervascular hepatocellular carcinoma: comparison of the diagnostic accuracy among the early, middle, late, and whole triple arterial phase imaging. , 2005, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[21]  J. Fleiss,et al.  Intraclass correlations: uses in assessing rater reliability. , 1979, Psychological bulletin.

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

[23]  Katsuyuki Taguchi,et al.  Evaluating tumors in transcatheter arterial chemoembolization (TACE) using dual-phase cone-beam CT , 2011, Minimally invasive therapy & allied technologies : MITAT : official journal of the Society for Minimally Invasive Therapy.

[24]  K D Hopper,et al.  The impact of 2D versus 3D quantitation of tumor bulk determination on current methods of assessing response to treatment. , 1996, Journal of computer assisted tomography.

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

[26]  E. Halpern,et al.  CT tumor measurement for therapeutic response assessment: comparison of unidimensional, bidimensional, and volumetric techniques initial observations. , 2002, Radiology.

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

[28]  L. Feldkamp,et al.  Practical cone-beam algorithm , 1984 .

[29]  M Van Glabbeke,et al.  New guidelines to evaluate the response to treatment in solid tumors. European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer, National Cancer Institute of the United States, National Cancer Institute of Canada. , 2000, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.