4.5 Article

Quantitative Tumor Segmentation for Evaluation of Extent of Glioblastoma Resection to Facilitate Multisite Clinical Trials

Journal

TRANSLATIONAL ONCOLOGY
Volume 7, Issue 1, Pages 40-+

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1593/tlo.13835

Keywords

-

Categories

Funding

  1. NIH [U01CA172027]
  2. [T32GM008602]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Standard-of-care therapy for glioblastomas, the most common and aggressive primary adult brain neoplasm, is maximal safe resection, followed by radiation and chemotherapy. Because maximizing resection may be beneficial for these patients, improving tumor extent of resection (EOR) with methods such as intraoperative 5-aminolevulinic acid fluorescence-guided surgery (FGS) is currently under evaluation. However, it is difficult to reproducibly judge EOR in these studies due to the lack of reliable tumor segmentation methods, especially for postoperative magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans. Therefore, a reliable, easily distributable segmentation method is needed to permit valid comparison, especially across multiple sites. We report a segmentation method that combines versatile region-of-interest blob generation with automated clustering methods. We applied this to glioblastoma cases undergoing FGS and matched controls to illustrate the method's reliability and accuracy. Agreement and interrater variability between segmentations were assessed using the concordance correlation coefficient, and spatial accuracy was determined using the Dice similarity index and mean Euclidean distance. Fuzzy C-means clustering with three classes was the best performing method, generating volumes with high agreement with manual contouring and high interrater agreement preoperatively and postoperatively. The proposed segmentation method allows tumor volume measurements of contrast-enhanced T-1-weighted images in the unbiased, reproducible fashion necessary for quantifying EOR in multicenter trials.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available