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
569-574Références
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