Comparative Evaluation of Three Software Packages for Liver and Spleen segmentation and Volumetry
Comparative Evaluation of Three Software Packages for Liver and Spleen segmentation and Volumetry
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/j.acra.2017.02.001
复制
发表时间：
2017-07-01
影响因子：
4.8
通讯作者：
Summers, Ronald M.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Pattanayak, Puskar;Turkbey, Evrim B.;Summers, Ronald M.
基本原理和目标：本研究旨在比较三种不同的软件包在分割肝脏和脾脏的速度和准确性。材料和方法：这三个软件包是优势工作站解决方案（AWS），Claron技术（Claron）肝脏Segmentor，和Vitrea核心Fx（Vitrea）。数据集包括30例门静脉期患者的腹部计算机断层扫描。除两名患者外，所有患者都被诊断为癌症。14例患者的肝脏和24例患者的脾脏报告为正常;其余肝脏和脾脏包含一个或多个异常。在Claron和Vitrea中记录初始分割时间和体积，因为这些创建了自动分割。记录校正后的总分割时间和体积。肝脏和脾脏分别由两名放射科医生分割，他们使用了所有三种包装。准确性进行了评估，通过比较使用完全手动分割测量的体积上的AWS.Results：Claron不能分割脾脏在四个科目的第一个读者和两个科目的第二个读者。对于AWS，两名读片员的肝脏最终平均分割时间分别为6.5和5.5分钟，Claron为4.4和3.6分钟，Vitrea为5.1和4.2分钟。AWS的脾脏最终平均分割时间为2.7和2.1分钟，Claron为2.1和1.4分钟，Vitrea为1.8和1.2分钟。使用Vitrea时，两名阅片员测量的器官体积之间无统计学显著差异。肝脏的初始分割体积和最终分割体积之间的平均差异范围为-1.2%至0.4%，脾脏的平均差异范围为-4.0%至9.8%。Claron和Vitrea的自动肝脏分割体积和AWS体积之间的平均差异分别为2.5%-2.9%和4.9%-6.6%。Claron和Vitrea.Conclusions：两种自动化软件包（Claron和Vitrea）测量的肝脏和脾脏体积在手动校正前准确、快速，自动分割体积与AWS体积的平均差异分别为5.0%-6.2%，10.6%-12.0%。肝脏的CT比脾脏的CT更准确，可能是由于脾脏体积比肝脏小得多。对于肝脏和脾脏，手动校正是耗时的，并且对于大多数受试者，没有显著改变体积测量。
Rationale and Objectives: This study aims to compare the speed and accuracy of three different software packages in segmenting the liver and the spleen.Materials and Methods: The three software packages are Advantage Workstation Solutions (AWS), Claron Technology (Claron) Liver Segmentor, and Vitrea Core Fx (Vitrea). The dataset consisted of abdominal computed tomography scans of 30 patients obtained from the portal venous phase. All but two of the patients had a cancer diagnosis. The livers of 14 patients and the spleens of 24 patients were reported as normal; the remaining livers and spleens contained one or more abnormalities. The initial segmentation times and volumes were recorded in Claron and Vitrea as these created automatic segmentations. The total segmentation times and volumes following corrections were recorded. The livers and spleens were segmented separately by two radiologists who used all three packages. Accuracy was assessed by comparing volumes measured using fully manual segmentation on the AWS.Results: Claron could not segment the spleen in four subjects for the first reader and in two subjects for the second reader. The final mean segmentation times for the liver for both readers were 6.5 and 5.5 minutes for AWS, 4.4 and 3.6 minutes for Claron, and 5.1 and 4.2 minutes for Vitrea. The final mean segmentation times for the spleen were 2.7 and 2.1 minutes for AWS, 2.1 and 1.4 minutes for Claron, and 1.8 and 1.2 minutes for Vitrea. No statistically significant difference was found between the organ volumes measured by the two readers when using Vitrea. The mean differences between the initial and final segmentation volumes ranged from -1.2% to 0.4% for the liver and from -4.0% to 9.8% for the spleen. The mean differences between the automated liver segmentation volumes and the AWS volumes were 2.5%-2.9% for Claron and 4.9%-6.6% for Vitrea. The mean differences between the automated splenic segmentation volumes and the AWS volumes were 5.0%-6.2% for Claron and 10.6%-12.0% for Vitrea.Conclusions: Both automated packages (Claron and Vitrea) measured liver and spleen volumes that were accurate and quick before manual correction. Volumes for the liver were more accurate than those for the spleen, perhaps due to the much smaller splenic volumes compared to those of the liver. For both liver and spleen, manual corrections were time consuming and for most subjects did not significantly change the volume measurement.