Validation of a Multifocal Segmentation Method for Measuring Metabolic Tumor Volume in Hodgkin Lymphoma

Mariana R. Camacho, E. Etchebehere, N. Tardelli, M. Delamain, Aline F.A. Vercosa, M. E. Takahashi, S. Q. Brunetto, I. Metze, C. Souza, J. Cerci, C. Ramos
{"title":"Validation of a Multifocal Segmentation Method for Measuring Metabolic Tumor Volume in Hodgkin Lymphoma","authors":"Mariana R. Camacho, E. Etchebehere, N. Tardelli, M. Delamain, Aline F.A. Vercosa, M. E. Takahashi, S. Q. Brunetto, I. Metze, C. Souza, J. Cerci, C. Ramos","doi":"10.2967/jnmt.119.231118","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Quantification of metabolic tumor volume (MTV) and total lesion glycolysis (TLG) can be time-consuming. We evaluated the performance of an automatic multifocal segmentation (MFS) method of quantification in patients with different stages of Hodgkin lymphoma, using the multiple VOI (MV) method as reference. Methods: This prospective bicentric study included 50 patients with Hodgkin lymphoma who underwent staging 18F-FGD PET/CT. The examinations were centrally reviewed and processed with commercial MFS software to obtain MTV and TLG using 2 fixed relative thresholds (40% and 20% of SUVmax) for each lesion. All PET/CT scans were processed using the MV and MFS methods. Interclass correlation coefficients and Bland–Altman plots were used for statistical analysis. Repeated calculations of MTV and TLG values by 2 observers with different degrees of PET/CT imaging experience were used to ascertain interobserver agreement on the MFS method. Results: The means and SDs obtained for the MTV with MV and MFS were, respectively, 736 ± 856 mL and 660 ± 699 mL for the 20% threshold and 313 ± 359 mL and 372 ± 434 mL for the 40% threshold. The time spent calculating the MTV was much shorter with the MFS method than with the MV method (median time, 11.6 min [range, 1–30 min] and 64.4 min [range, 1–240 min], respectively), especially in patients with advanced disease. Time spent was similar in patients with localized disease. There were no statistical differences between the MFS values obtained by the 2 different observers. Conclusion: MTV and TLG calculations using MFS are reproducible, generate similar results to those obtained with MV, and are much less timing-consuming. Main differences between the 2 methods were related to difficulties in avoiding overlay of VOIs in the MV technique. MV and MFS perform equally well in patients with a small number of lesions.","PeriodicalId":22799,"journal":{"name":"The Journal of Nuclear Medicine Technology","volume":"10 1","pages":"30 - 35"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-10-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"13","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Journal of Nuclear Medicine Technology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2967/jnmt.119.231118","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 13

Abstract

Quantification of metabolic tumor volume (MTV) and total lesion glycolysis (TLG) can be time-consuming. We evaluated the performance of an automatic multifocal segmentation (MFS) method of quantification in patients with different stages of Hodgkin lymphoma, using the multiple VOI (MV) method as reference. Methods: This prospective bicentric study included 50 patients with Hodgkin lymphoma who underwent staging 18F-FGD PET/CT. The examinations were centrally reviewed and processed with commercial MFS software to obtain MTV and TLG using 2 fixed relative thresholds (40% and 20% of SUVmax) for each lesion. All PET/CT scans were processed using the MV and MFS methods. Interclass correlation coefficients and Bland–Altman plots were used for statistical analysis. Repeated calculations of MTV and TLG values by 2 observers with different degrees of PET/CT imaging experience were used to ascertain interobserver agreement on the MFS method. Results: The means and SDs obtained for the MTV with MV and MFS were, respectively, 736 ± 856 mL and 660 ± 699 mL for the 20% threshold and 313 ± 359 mL and 372 ± 434 mL for the 40% threshold. The time spent calculating the MTV was much shorter with the MFS method than with the MV method (median time, 11.6 min [range, 1–30 min] and 64.4 min [range, 1–240 min], respectively), especially in patients with advanced disease. Time spent was similar in patients with localized disease. There were no statistical differences between the MFS values obtained by the 2 different observers. Conclusion: MTV and TLG calculations using MFS are reproducible, generate similar results to those obtained with MV, and are much less timing-consuming. Main differences between the 2 methods were related to difficulties in avoiding overlay of VOIs in the MV technique. MV and MFS perform equally well in patients with a small number of lesions.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
测量霍奇金淋巴瘤代谢肿瘤体积的多焦点分割方法的验证
代谢肿瘤体积(MTV)和病变总糖酵解(TLG)的定量可能是耗时的。我们评估了自动多焦点分割(MFS)定量方法在不同阶段霍奇金淋巴瘤患者中的表现,以多重VOI (MV)方法为参考。方法:这项前瞻性双中心研究纳入了50例霍奇金淋巴瘤患者,他们接受了分期18F-FGD PET/CT。使用商业MFS软件对检查结果进行集中回顾和处理,获得每个病变的MTV和TLG,使用2个固定的相对阈值(SUVmax的40%和20%)。所有PET/CT扫描均采用MV和MFS方法处理。采用类间相关系数和Bland-Altman图进行统计分析。2名具有不同程度PET/CT成像经验的观察者重复计算MTV和TLG值,以确定观察者之间对MFS方法的一致性。结果:MV和MFS的MTV在20%阈值下的均值和SDs分别为736±856 mL和660±699 mL,在40%阈值下的均值和SDs分别为313±359 mL和372±434 mL。MFS法计算MTV的时间远短于MV法(中位时间分别为11.6 min[范围,1-30 min]和64.4 min[范围,1-240 min]),特别是在疾病晚期患者中。在局限性疾病患者中花费的时间相似。2个不同观测者获得的MFS值无统计学差异。结论:使用MFS计算MTV和TLG具有可重复性,结果与使用MV计算结果相似,且耗时更少。两种方法的主要区别在于MV技术难以避免voi的叠加。MV和MFS在少量病变的患者中表现同样良好。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Diuretic Renal Scintigraphy Stability Matters: Radiochemical Stability of Therapeutic Radiopharmaceutical 177Lu-PSMA I&T Small-Bowel and Colon Transit SNMMI Procedure Standard/EANM Practice Guideline for Molecular Breast Imaging with Dedicated γ-Cameras SNMMI Clinical Trials Network Research Series for Technologists: Clinical Research Primer—Regulatory Process, Part II: The Role of the Institutional Review Board in Food and Drug Administration–Regulated Radiopharmaceutical Research
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1