Computer-aided liver volumetry: performance of a fully-automated, prototype post-processing solution for whole-organ and lobar segmentation based on MDCT imaging.
Purpose: To evaluate the performance of a prototype, fully-automated post-processing solution for whole-liver and lobar segmentation based on MDCT datasets.Materials and Methods: A polymer liver phantom was used to assess accuracy of post-processing applications comparing phantom volumes determined...
| Publicado en: | Abdominal Imaging Vol. 40; no. 5; pp. 1203 - 1213 |
|---|---|
| Autores principales: | , , , |
| Formato: | Journal Article |
| Publicado: |
Springer Nature
Jun2015
|
| Acceso en línea: | Ver este registro en EBSCOhost |
| fields | @attributes: recordID: 1 pdfLink: plink: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ccm&AN=109740977&site=ehost-live header: @attributes: shortDbName: ccm uiTerm: 109740977 longDbName: CINAHL Complete uiTag: AN controlInfo: bkinfo: dissinfo: jinfo: jid: 09428925 O52 jtl: Abdominal Imaging issn: 09428925 maglogo: N pubinfo: dt: Jun2015 vid: 40 iid: 5 pid: 237 pub: Springer Nature place: New York, New York artinfo: ui: 109740977 NLM25326261 2013028242 10.1007/s00261-014-0276-9 NLM25326261 109740977 ppf: 1203 ppct: 10 formats: fmt: @attributes: type: P tig: atl: Computer-aided liver volumetry: performance of a fully-automated, prototype post-processing solution for whole-organ and lobar segmentation based on MDCT imaging. aug: au: Fananapazir, Ghaneh Bashir, Mustafa R Marin, Daniele Boll, Daniel T sug: ab: Purpose: To evaluate the performance of a prototype, fully-automated post-processing solution for whole-liver and lobar segmentation based on MDCT datasets.Materials and Methods: A polymer liver phantom was used to assess accuracy of post-processing applications comparing phantom volumes determined via Archimedes' principle with MDCT segmented datasets. For the IRB-approved, HIPAA-compliant study, 25 patients were enrolled. Volumetry performance compared the manual approach with the automated prototype, assessing intraobserver variability, and interclass correlation for whole-organ and lobar segmentation using ANOVA comparison. Fidelity of segmentation was evaluated qualitatively.Results: Phantom volume was 1581.0 ± 44.7 mL, manually segmented datasets estimated 1628.0 ± 47.8 mL, representing a mean overestimation of 3.0%, automatically segmented datasets estimated 1601.9 ± 0 mL, representing a mean overestimation of 1.3%. Whole-liver and segmental volumetry demonstrated no significant intraobserver variability for neither manual nor automated measurements. For whole-liver volumetry, automated measurement repetitions resulted in identical values; reproducible whole-organ volumetry was also achieved with manual segmentation, p(ANOVA) 0.98. For lobar volumetry, automated segmentation improved reproducibility over manual approach, without significant measurement differences for either methodology, p(ANOVA) 0.95-0.99. Whole-organ and lobar segmentation results from manual and automated segmentation showed no significant differences, p(ANOVA) 0.96-1.00. Assessment of segmentation fidelity found that segments I-IV/VI showed greater segmentation inaccuracies compared to the remaining right hepatic lobe segments.Conclusion: Automated whole-liver segmentation showed non-inferiority of fully-automated whole-liver segmentation compared to manual approaches with improved reproducibility and post-processing duration; automated dual-seed lobar segmentation showed slight tendencies for underestimating the right hepatic lobe volume and greater variability in edge detection for the left hepatic lobe compared to manual segmentation. pubtype: Academic Journal doctype: Journal Article ougenre: Article language: English refInfo: holdings: @attributes: islocal: N |
|---|