Repeatability of [
FDG PET/CT
Majority vote
Metabolic active tumour volume
NSCLC
Repeatability
Total tumour burden
Tracer uptake interval
Tumour delineation
Journal
EJNMMI research
ISSN: 2191-219X
Titre abrégé: EJNMMI Res
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 101560946
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
07 Feb 2019
07 Feb 2019
Historique:
received:
06
09
2018
accepted:
25
01
2019
entrez:
9
2
2019
pubmed:
9
2
2019
medline:
9
2
2019
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Total metabolic active tumour volume (TMATV) and total tumour burden (TTB) are increasingly studied as prognostic and predictive factors in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients. In this study, we investigated the repeatability of TMATV and TTB as function of uptake interval, positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) image reconstruction settings, and lesion delineation method. We used six lesion delineation methods, four direct PET image-derived delineations and two based on a majority vote approach, i.e. intersection between two or more delineations (MV2) and between three or more delineations (MV3). To evaluate the accuracy of those methods, they were compared with a reference delineation obtained from the consensus of the segmentations performed by three experienced observers. Ten NSCLC patients underwent two baseline whole-body [ Based on the Jaccard index with the reference delineation, the MV2 lesion delineation method was the most successful method for automated lesion segmentation. The best overall repeatability (lowest repeatability coefficient, RC) was found for TTB from 90 min of tracer uptake scans reconstructed with EARL compliant settings and delineated with 41% of lesion's maximum SUV method (RC = 11%). In most cases, TMATV and TTB repeatability were not significantly affected by changes in tracer uptake time or reconstruction settings. However, some lesion delineation methods had significantly different repeatability when applied to the same images. This study suggests that under some circumstances TMATV and TTB repeatability are significantly affected by the lesion delineation method used. Performing the delineation with a majority vote approach improves reliability and does not hamper repeatability, regardless of acquisition and reconstruction settings. It is therefore concluded that by using a majority vote based tumour segmentation approach, TMATV and TTB in NSCLC patients can be measured with high reliability and precision.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Total metabolic active tumour volume (TMATV) and total tumour burden (TTB) are increasingly studied as prognostic and predictive factors in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients. In this study, we investigated the repeatability of TMATV and TTB as function of uptake interval, positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) image reconstruction settings, and lesion delineation method. We used six lesion delineation methods, four direct PET image-derived delineations and two based on a majority vote approach, i.e. intersection between two or more delineations (MV2) and between three or more delineations (MV3). To evaluate the accuracy of those methods, they were compared with a reference delineation obtained from the consensus of the segmentations performed by three experienced observers. Ten NSCLC patients underwent two baseline whole-body [
RESULTS
RESULTS
Based on the Jaccard index with the reference delineation, the MV2 lesion delineation method was the most successful method for automated lesion segmentation. The best overall repeatability (lowest repeatability coefficient, RC) was found for TTB from 90 min of tracer uptake scans reconstructed with EARL compliant settings and delineated with 41% of lesion's maximum SUV method (RC = 11%). In most cases, TMATV and TTB repeatability were not significantly affected by changes in tracer uptake time or reconstruction settings. However, some lesion delineation methods had significantly different repeatability when applied to the same images.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
This study suggests that under some circumstances TMATV and TTB repeatability are significantly affected by the lesion delineation method used. Performing the delineation with a majority vote approach improves reliability and does not hamper repeatability, regardless of acquisition and reconstruction settings. It is therefore concluded that by using a majority vote based tumour segmentation approach, TMATV and TTB in NSCLC patients can be measured with high reliability and precision.
Identifiants
pubmed: 30734113
doi: 10.1186/s13550-019-0481-1
pii: 10.1186/s13550-019-0481-1
pmc: PMC6367490
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
14Références
Stat Methods Med Res. 1999 Jun;8(2):135-60
pubmed: 10501650
Eur J Nucl Med. 2000 Jun;27(6):731-43
pubmed: 10901462
Eur J Nucl Med. 2000 Jul;27(7):861-6
pubmed: 10952499
Nucl Med Biol. 2000 Oct;27(7):647-55
pubmed: 11091107
Mol Imaging Biol. 2002 Mar;4(2):171-8
pubmed: 14537140
Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2005 Mar;32(3):294-301
pubmed: 15791438
IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 2006 Jul;25(7):907-21
pubmed: 16827491
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2007 Oct 1;69(2):328-33
pubmed: 17869659
J Nucl Med. 2008 Mar;49(3):480-508
pubmed: 18287273
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2009 Aug 1;74(5):1335-41
pubmed: 19289263
J Nucl Med. 2009 May;50 Suppl 1:11S-20S
pubmed: 19380405
J Nucl Med. 2009 May;50 Suppl 1:122S-50S
pubmed: 19403881
J Nucl Med. 2010 Dec;51(12):1870-7
pubmed: 21078791
J Thorac Imaging. 2011 May;26(2):132-46
pubmed: 21508735
Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2011 Sep;38(9):1636-47
pubmed: 21617975
Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2011 Dec;38(12):2136-44
pubmed: 21858528
Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2012 Jan-Feb;37(1):99-105
pubmed: 22189576
Radiology. 2012 Aug;264(2):559-66
pubmed: 22692034
J Nucl Med. 2012 Oct;53(10):1514-20
pubmed: 22879081
Radiology. 2014 Nov;273(2):539-48
pubmed: 24865311
Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2015 Feb;42(2):328-54
pubmed: 25452219
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2015 Feb 1;91(2):376-84
pubmed: 25636761
J Nucl Med. 2015 Aug;56(8):1137-43
pubmed: 25908829
EJNMMI Phys. 2014 Dec;1(1):99
pubmed: 26501457
Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2016 May;43(5):911-24
pubmed: 26567163
Mol Imaging Biol. 2016 Oct;18(5):788-95
pubmed: 26920355
J Nucl Med. 2016 Sep;57(9):1343-9
pubmed: 27103020
J Nucl Med. 2017 Feb;58(2):276-281
pubmed: 27754905
Ann Nucl Med. 2017 Feb;31(2):125-134
pubmed: 27812791
J Nucl Med. 2017 Apr;58(4):523-532
pubmed: 28232605
EJNMMI Res. 2017 Dec;7(1):30
pubmed: 28361349
Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2018 Jul;45(7):1142-1154
pubmed: 29460024
Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2018 Jul;45(8):1344-1361
pubmed: 29500480
Biometrics. 1986 Mar;42(1):121-30
pubmed: 3719049
J Nucl Med. 1995 Oct;36(10):1836-9
pubmed: 7562051
J Nucl Med. 1994 Aug;35(8):1308-12
pubmed: 8046485