Back to Search Start Over

Glioblastoma Segmentation: Comparison of Three Different Software Packages.

Authors :
Fyllingen, Even Hovig
Stensjøen, Anne Line
Berntsen, Erik Magnus
Solheim, Ole
Reinertsen, Ingerid
Source :
PLoS ONE; 10/25/2016, Vol. 11 Issue 10, p1-16, 16p
Publication Year :
2016

Abstract

To facilitate a more widespread use of volumetric tumor segmentation in clinical studies, there is an urgent need for reliable, user-friendly segmentation software. The aim of this study was therefore to compare three different software packages for semi-automatic brain tumor segmentation of glioblastoma; namely BrainVoyager<superscript>TM</superscript> QX, ITK-Snap and 3D Slicer, and to make data available for future reference. Pre-operative, contrast enhanced T<subscript>1</subscript>-weighted 1.5 or 3 Tesla Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) scans were obtained in 20 consecutive patients who underwent surgery for glioblastoma. MRI scans were segmented twice in each software package by two investigators. Intra-rater, inter-rater and between-software agreement was compared by using differences of means with 95% limits of agreement (LoA), Dice’s similarity coefficients (DSC) and Hausdorff distance (HD). Time expenditure of segmentations was measured using a stopwatch. Eighteen tumors were included in the analyses. Inter-rater agreement was highest for BrainVoyager with difference of means of 0.19 mL and 95% LoA from -2.42 mL to 2.81 mL. Between-software agreement and 95% LoA were very similar for the different software packages. Intra-rater, inter-rater and between-software DSC were ≥ 0.93 in all analyses. Time expenditure was approximately 41 min per segmentation in BrainVoyager, and 18 min per segmentation in both 3D Slicer and ITK-Snap. Our main findings were that there is a high agreement within and between the software packages in terms of small intra-rater, inter-rater and between-software differences of means and high Dice’s similarity coefficients. Time expenditure was highest for BrainVoyager, but all software packages were relatively time-consuming, which may limit usability in an everyday clinical setting. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Details

Language :
English
ISSN :
19326203
Volume :
11
Issue :
10
Database :
Complementary Index
Journal :
PLoS ONE
Publication Type :
Academic Journal
Accession number :
119041399
Full Text :
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0164891