4.7 Article

Volumetric CT-based segmentation of NSCLC using 3D-Slicer

Journal

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
Volume 3, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/srep03529

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. National Institute of Health (NIH-USA) [U01 CA 143062-01]
  2. CTMM framework (AIRFORCE project) [030-103]
  3. EU
  4. euroCAT (IVA Interreg)
  5. Kankeronderzoekfonds Limburg from the Health Foundation Limburg
  6. Dutch Cancer Society [KWF UM 2011-5020, KWF UM 2009-4454]
  7. QuIC-ConCePT project [115151]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Accurate volumetric assessment in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is critical for adequately informing treatments. In this study we assessed the clinical relevance of a semiautomatic computed tomography (CT)-based segmentation method using the competitive region-growing based algorithm, implemented in the free and public available 3D-Slicer software platform. We compared the 3D-Slicer segmented volumes by three independent observers, who segmented the primary tumour of 20 NSCLC patients twice, to manual slice-by-slice delineations of five physicians. Furthermore, we compared all tumour contours to the macroscopic diameter of the tumour in pathology, considered as the gold standard. The 3D-Slicer segmented volumes demonstrated high agreement (overlap fractions > 0.90), lower volume variability (p = 0.0003) and smaller uncertainty areas (p = 0.0002), compared to manual slice-by-slice delineations. Furthermore, 3D-Slicer segmentations showed a strong correlation to pathology (r = 0.89, 95% CI, 0.81-0.94). Our results show that semiautomatic 3D-Slicer segmentations can be used for accurate contouring and are more stable than manual delineations. Therefore, 3D-Slicer can be employed as a starting point for treatment decisions or for high-throughput data mining research, such as Radiomics, where manual delineating often represent a time-consuming bottleneck.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available