Comparing Image Segmentation Techniques for Determining 3D Orbital Cavernous Hemangioma Size on MRI.


Journal

Ophthalmic plastic and reconstructive surgery
ISSN: 1537-2677
Titre abrégé: Ophthalmic Plast Reconstr Surg
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 8508431

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
Historique:
pubmed: 20 5 2020
medline: 19 3 2021
entrez: 20 5 2020
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

To measure orbital cavernous hemangioma size using 3 segmentation methods requiring different degrees of subjective judgment, and to evaluate interobserver agreement using these methods. Fourteen patients with orbital cavernous hemangiomas were included in the study. Pretreatment T2-weighted MRIs were analyzed by 2 observers using 3 methods, including 1 user-dependent image segmentation method that required high degrees of subjective judgment (ellipsoid) and 2 parameter-dependent methods that required low degree of subjective judgment (GrowCut and k-means clustering segmentation). Interobserver agreement was assessed using Lin's concordance correlation coefficients. Using the ellipsoid method, the average tumor sizes calculated by the 2 observers were 1.68 ml (standard deviation [SD] 1.45 ml) and 1.48 ml (SD 1.19 ml). Using the GrowCut method, the average tumor sizes calculated by the 2 observers were 3.00 ml (SD 2.46 ml) and 6.34 ml (SD 3.78 ml). Using k-means clustering segmentation, the average tumor sizes calculated by the 2 observers were 2.31 ml (SD 1.83 ml) and 2.12 ml (SD 1.87 ml). The concordance correlation coefficient for the ellipsoid, GrowCut, and k-means clustering methods were 0.92 (95% CI, 0.83-0.99), 0.12 (95% CI, -0.21 to 0.44), and 0.95 (95% CI, 0.90-0.99), respectively. k-means clustering, a parameter-dependent method with low degree of subjective judgment, showed better interobserver agreement compared with the ellipsoid and GrowCut methods. k-means clustering clearly delineated tumor boundaries and outlined components of the tumor with different signal intensities.

Identifiants

pubmed: 32427734
doi: 10.1097/IOP.0000000000001651
pii: 00002341-202011000-00009
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

569-574

Références

Calandriello L, Grimaldi G, Petrone G, et al. Cavernous venous malformation (cavernous hemangioma) of the orbit: current concepts and a review of the literature. Surv Ophthalmol. 2017; 62:393–403
Harris GJ. Cavernous hemangioma of the orbital apex: pathogenetic considerations in surgical management. Am J Ophthalmol. 2010; 150:764–73
Smoker WR, Gentry LR, Yee NK, et al. Vascular lesions of the orbit: more than meets the eye. Radiographics. 2008; 28:185–204; quiz 325
McNab AA, Selva D, Hardy TG, et al. The anatomical location and laterality of orbital cavernous haemangiomas. Orbit. 2014; 33:359–62
McNab AA, Tan JS, Xie J, et al. The natural history of orbital cavernous hemangiomas. Ophthalmic Plast Reconstr Surg. 2015; 31:89–93
Scheuerle AF, Steiner HH, Kolling G, et al. Treatment and long-term outcome of patients with orbital cavernomas. Am J Ophthalmol. 2004; 138:237–44
Clarós P, Choffor-Nchinda E, Lopez-Fortuny M, et al. Orbital cavernous haemangioma; profile and outcome of 76 patients managed surgically. Acta Otolaryngol. 2019; 139:720–5
Colletti G, Biglioli F, Poli T, et al. Vascular malformations of the orbit (lymphatic, venous, arteriovenous): diagnosis, management and results. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2019; 47:726–40
Heller RS, David CA, Heilman CB. Orbital reconstruction for tumor-associated proptosis: quantitative analysis of postoperative orbital volume and final eye position. J Neurosurg. 2019;132: 927–32.
Chohan MO, Levin AM, Singh R, et al. Three-dimensional volumetric measurements in defining endoscope-guided giant adenoma surgery outcomes. Pituitary. 2016; 19:311–21
Fedorov A, Beichel R, Kalpathy-Cramer J, et al. 3D Slicer as an image computing platform for the quantitative imaging network. Magn Reson Imaging. 2012; 30:1323–41
Vezhnevets V, Konouchine V. Growcut-interactive multi-label N-D image segmentation. Proc Graphicon. 2005;1:150–6
Egger J, Kapur T, Fedorov A, et al. GBM volumetry using the 3D Slicer medical image computing platform. Sci Rep. 2013; 3:1364
Egger J, Kapur T, Nimsky C, et al. Pituitary adenoma volumetry with 3D Slicer. PLoS One. 2012; 7:e51788
Singh R, Zhou Z, Tisnado J, et al. A novel magnetic resonance imaging segmentation technique for determining diffuse intrinsic pontine glioma tumor volume. J Neurosurg Pediatr. 2016; 18:565–72
Lin L, Hedayat AS, Sinha B, Yang M. Statistical methods in assessing agreement: models, issues, and tools. J Am Stat Assoc. 2002; 97:257–70
McBride GB. A Proposal for Strength-of-Agreement Criteria for Lin’s Concordance Correlation Coefficient. Hamilton, New Zealand: Ministry of Health. 2005 https://www.medcalc.org/download/pdf/McBride2005.pdf. Accessed December 3, 2019.
McBride GB. Equivalence Measures for Comparing the Performance of Alternative Methods for the Analysis of Water Quality Variables. Hamilton, New Zealand: Ministry of Health. 2007. https://www.health.govt.nz/system/files/documents/publications/equivalence-measures-2007.pdf. Accessed December 3, 2019.
Bland JM, Altman DG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet. 1986; 1:307–10
Arthur D, Vassilvitskii S. K-means++: the advantages of careful seeding. In Proceedings of the Eighteenth Annual ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms. Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics2007, pp 1027–35. New Orleans, Louisiana, USA, January 7th - 9th, 2007.
MacQueen J. Some methods for classification and analysis of multivariate observations. Cam LM, Neyman J, eds. In: Fifth Berkeley Symposium on Mathematical Statistics and Probability. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. 1967281–97
Hartigan JA, Wong MA. A k-means clustering algorithm. Applied Statistics. 1979; 28:100–8
Forgy EW. Cluster analysis of multivariate data: efficiency versus interpretability of classification. Biometrics. 1965; 21:768–9
Lloyd SP. Least squares quantization in PCM. IEEE T Inform Theory. 1982; 28:128–37
Young SM, Kim YD, Lee JH, et al. Radiological analysis of orbital cavernous hemangiomas: a review and comparison between computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging. J Craniofac Surg. 2018; 29:712–6
Purohit BS, Vargas MI, Ailianou A, et al. Orbital tumours and tumour-like lesions: exploring the armamentarium of multiparametric imaging. Insights Imaging. 2016; 7:43–68
Tailor TD, Gupta D, Dalley RW, et al. Orbital neoplasms in adults: clinical, radiologic, and pathologic review. Radiographics. 2013; 33:1739–58

Auteurs

Ranjodh S Boparai (RS)

Wills Eye Hospital, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

Michelle M Maeng (MM)

Edward S. Harkness Eye Institute, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, New York.

Kristen E Dunbar (KE)

Department of Ophthalmology, New York University Langone Health Center, New York, New York.

Kyle J Godfrey (KJ)

Edward S. Harkness Eye Institute, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, New York.

Andrea A Tooley (AA)

Edward S. Harkness Eye Institute, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, New York.

Mary Maher (M)

Department of Radiology, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, New York, U.S.A.

Michael Kazim (M)

Edward S. Harkness Eye Institute, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, New York.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH