Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2016 Nov 8;17(6):118-127.
doi: 10.1120/jacmp.v17i6.6485.

Comparison of liver volumetry on contrast-enhanced CT images: one semiautomatic and two automatic approaches

Wei Cai  1 , Baochun He, Yingfang Fan, Chihua Fang, Fucang Jia
Affiliations

Comparison of liver volumetry on contrast-enhanced CT images: one semiautomatic and two automatic approaches

Wei Cai et al. J Appl Clin Med Phys. .

Abstract

This study was to evaluate the accuracy, consistency, and efficiency of three liver volumetry methods- one interactive method, an in-house-developed 3D medical Image Analysis (3DMIA) system, one automatic active shape model (ASM)-based segmentation, and one automatic probabilistic atlas (PA)-guided segmentation method on clinical contrast-enhanced CT images. Forty-two datasets, including 27 normal liver and 15 space-occupying liver lesion patients, were retrospectively included in this study. The three methods - one semiautomatic 3DMIA, one automatic ASM-based, and one automatic PA-based liver volumetry - achieved an accuracy with VD (volume difference) of -1.69%, -2.75%, and 3.06% in the normal group, respectively, and with VD of -3.20%, -3.35%, and 4.14% in the space-occupying lesion group, respectively. However, the three methods achieved an efficiency of 27.63 mins, 1.26 mins, 1.18 mins on average, respectively, compared with the manual volumetry, which took 43.98 mins. The high intraclass correlation coefficient between the three methods and the manual method indicated an excel-lent agreement on liver volumetry. Significant differences in segmentation time were observed between the three methods (3DMIA, ASM, and PA) and the manual volumetry (p < 0.001), as well as between the automatic volumetries (ASM and PA) and the semiautomatic volumetry (3DMIA) (p < 0.001). The semiautomatic interactive 3DMIA, automatic ASM-based, and automatic PA-based liver volum-etry agreed well with manual gold standard in both the normal liver group and the space-occupying lesion group. The ASM- and PA-based automatic segmentation have better efficiency in clinical use.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
The relationships among 3DMIA, ASM, PA, and manual volumetry (reference standard): (a) volume measured with 3DMIA vs. gold standard in group A; (b) volume measured with ASM vs. gold standard in group A; (c) volume measured with PA vs. gold standard in group A; (d) volume measured with 3DMIA vs. gold standard in group B; (e) volume measured with ASM vs. gold standard in group B; (f) volume measured with PA vs. gold standard in group B.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Bland‐Altman plots for agreement among different methods: (a) 3DMIA and manual volumetry in group A; (b) ASM and manual volumetry in group A; (c) PA and manual volumetry in group A; (d) 3DMIA and manual volumetry in group B; (e) ASM and manual volumetry in group B; (f) PA and manual volumetry in group B.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Comparison of segmentations between the three methods and the corresponding gold standard (yellow curve). Liver contour determined by (a) semiautomatic software (red), (b) ASM method (green), (c) PA method (purple). Normal case (top row) and diseased case (bottom row). Transversal views.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. International agency for research on cancer . Globocan 2012: Estimated Cancer Incidence, Mortality and Prevalence Worldwide in 2012. All Cancers (excluding non‐melanoma skin cancer) Estimated Incidence, Mortality and Prevalence Worldwide in 2012. Available from: http://globocan.iarc.fr/Pages/fact_sheets_cancer.aspx. Accessed 12 May, 2016.
    1. Lau WY and Lai EC. Hepatocellular carcinoma: current management and recent advances. Hepatob Pancreat Dis. 2008;7(3):237–57. - PubMed
    1. El‐Serag HB. Current concepts: hepatocellular carcinoma. New Engl J Med. 2011;365(12):1118–27. - PubMed
    1. Frericks BB, Caldarone FC, Nashan B, et al. 3D CT modeling of hepatic vessel architecture and volume calculation in living donated liver transplantation. Eur Radiol. 2004;14(2):326–33. - PubMed
    1. Huynh HT, Karademir I, Oto A, Suzuki K. Computerized liver volumetry on MRI by using 3D geodesic active contour segmentation. Am J Roentgenol. 2014;202(1):152–59. - PMC - PubMed

MeSH terms