Computer-aided liver volumetry: performance of a fully-automated, prototype post-processing solution for whole-organ and lobar segmentation based on MDCT imaging
| LEADER | caa a22 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | 60549505X | ||
| 003 | CHVBK | ||
| 005 | 20210128100529.0 | ||
| 007 | cr unu---uuuuu | ||
| 008 | 210128e20150601xx s 000 0 eng | ||
| 024 | 7 | 0 | |a 10.1007/s00261-014-0276-9 |2 doi |
| 035 | |a (NATIONALLICENCE)springer-10.1007/s00261-014-0276-9 | ||
| 245 | 0 | 0 | |a Computer-aided liver volumetry: performance of a fully-automated, prototype post-processing solution for whole-organ and lobar segmentation based on MDCT imaging |h [Elektronische Daten] |c [Ghaneh Fananapazir, Mustafa Bashir, Daniele Marin, Daniel Boll] |
| 520 | 3 | |a 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±44.7mL, manually segmented datasets estimated 1628.0±47.8mL, representing a mean overestimation of 3.0%, automatically segmented datasets estimated 1601.9±0mL, 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. | |
| 540 | |a Springer Science+Business Media New York, 2014 | ||
| 690 | 7 | |a MDCT |2 nationallicence | |
| 690 | 7 | |a Post-processing |2 nationallicence | |
| 690 | 7 | |a Liver |2 nationallicence | |
| 690 | 7 | |a Volumetry |2 nationallicence | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Fananapazir |D Ghaneh |u Department of Radiology, Duke University Medical Center, DUMC 3808, 27710, Durham, NC, USA |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Bashir |D Mustafa |u Department of Radiology, Duke University Medical Center, DUMC 3808, 27710, Durham, NC, USA |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Marin |D Daniele |u Department of Radiology, Duke University Medical Center, DUMC 3808, 27710, Durham, NC, USA |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Boll |D Daniel |u Department of Radiology, Duke University Medical Center, DUMC 3808, 27710, Durham, NC, USA |4 aut | |
| 773 | 0 | |t Abdominal Imaging |d Springer US; http://www.springer-ny.com |g 40/5(2015-06-01), 1203-1212 |x 0942-8925 |q 40:5<1203 |1 2015 |2 40 |o 261 | |
| 856 | 4 | 0 | |u https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-014-0276-9 |q text/html |z Onlinezugriff via DOI |
| 898 | |a BK010053 |b XK010053 |c XK010000 | ||
| 900 | 7 | |a Metadata rights reserved |b Springer special CC-BY-NC licence |2 nationallicence | |
| 908 | |D 1 |a research-article |2 jats | ||
| 949 | |B NATIONALLICENCE |F NATIONALLICENCE |b NL-springer | ||
| 950 | |B NATIONALLICENCE |P 856 |E 40 |u https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-014-0276-9 |q text/html |z Onlinezugriff via DOI | ||
| 950 | |B NATIONALLICENCE |P 700 |E 1- |a Fananapazir |D Ghaneh |u Department of Radiology, Duke University Medical Center, DUMC 3808, 27710, Durham, NC, USA |4 aut | ||
| 950 | |B NATIONALLICENCE |P 700 |E 1- |a Bashir |D Mustafa |u Department of Radiology, Duke University Medical Center, DUMC 3808, 27710, Durham, NC, USA |4 aut | ||
| 950 | |B NATIONALLICENCE |P 700 |E 1- |a Marin |D Daniele |u Department of Radiology, Duke University Medical Center, DUMC 3808, 27710, Durham, NC, USA |4 aut | ||
| 950 | |B NATIONALLICENCE |P 700 |E 1- |a Boll |D Daniel |u Department of Radiology, Duke University Medical Center, DUMC 3808, 27710, Durham, NC, USA |4 aut | ||
| 950 | |B NATIONALLICENCE |P 773 |E 0- |t Abdominal Imaging |d Springer US; http://www.springer-ny.com |g 40/5(2015-06-01), 1203-1212 |x 0942-8925 |q 40:5<1203 |1 2015 |2 40 |o 261 | ||