ArticleEuropean journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging2016
Impact of consensus contours from multiple PET segmentation methods on the accuracy of functional volume delineation.
Article in European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
20 citing papers in PubMed.
- Segmentation method comparison for baseline [EJNMMI physics · 2026Article
- Does consensus contour improve robustness and accuracy inEJNMMI physics · 2024Article
- Advances and challenges in immunoPET methodology.Frontiers in nuclear medicine · 2024Review
- Automated hippocampal segmentation algorithms evaluated in stroke patients.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Does consensus contours improve robustness and accuracy onEJNMMI physics · 2023Article
- Article
- GOECP/SEOR radiotheraphy guidelines for non-small-cell lung cancer.World journal of clinical oncology · 2022Review
- Joint EANM/SNMMI/ESTRO practice recommendations for the use of 2-[European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2022Review
- Interobserver Agreement on Automated Metabolic Tumor Volume Measurements of Deauville Score 4 and 5 Lesions at InterimJournal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine · 2021Article
- Random survival forest to predict transplant-eligible newly diagnosed multiple myeloma outcome including FDG-PET radiomics: a combined analysis of two independent prospective European trials.European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2021Article
- Automated Segmentation of Baseline Metabolic Total Tumor Burden in Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma: Which Method Is Most Successful? A Study on Behalf of the PETRA Consortium.Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine · 2021Article
- PET segmentation of bulky tumors: Strategies and workflows to improve inter-observer variability.PloS one · 2020Article
- Analyzing the co-localization of substantia nigra hyper-echogenicities and iron accumulation in Parkinson's disease: A multi-modal atlas study with transcranial ultrasound and MRI.NeuroImage. Clinical · 2020Article
- Time to Prepare for Risk Adaptation in Lymphoma by Standardizing Measurement of Metabolic Tumor Burden.Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine · 2019Article
- Repeatability of [EJNMMI research · 2019Article
- Delineation of lung cancer with FDG PET/CT during radiation therapy.Radiation oncology (London, England) · 2018Article
- The developing role of FDG PET imaging for prognostication and radiotherapy target volume delineation in non-small cell lung cancer.Journal of thoracic disease · 2018Review
- Evaluation of prognostic models developed using standardised image features from different PET automated segmentation methods.EJNMMI research · 2018Article
- Article
- Classification and evaluation strategies of auto-segmentation approaches for PET: Report of AAPM task group No. 211.Medical physics · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of consensus algorithms on segmentation results when applied to clinical PET images. In particular, whether the use of the majority vote or STAPLE algorithm could improve the accuracy and reproducibility of the segmentation provided by the combination of three semiautomatic segmentation algorithms was investigated.
methodsThree published segmentation methods (contrast-oriented, possibility theory and adaptive thresholding) and two consensus algorithms (majority vote and STAPLE) were implemented in a single software platform (Artiview®). Four clinical datasets including different locations (thorax, breast, abdomen) or pathologies (primary NSCLC tumours, metastasis, lymphoma) were used to evaluate accuracy and reproducibility of the consensus approach in comparison with pathology as the ground truth or CT as a ground truth surrogate.
resultsVariability in the performance of the individual segmentation algorithms for lesions of different tumour entities reflected the variability in PET images in terms of resolution, contrast and noise. Independent of location and pathology of the lesion, however, the consensus method resulted in improved accuracy in volume segmentation compared with the worst-performing individual method in the majority of cases and was close to the best-performing method in many cases. In addition, the implementation revealed high reproducibility in the segmentation results with small changes in the respective starting conditions. There were no significant differences in the results with the STAPLE algorithm and the majority vote algorithm.
conclusionThis study showed that combining different PET segmentation methods by the use of a consensus algorithm offers robustness against the variable performance of individual segmentation methods and this approach would therefore be useful in radiation oncology. It might also be relevant for other scenarios such as the merging of expert recommendations in clinical routine and trials or the multiobserver generation of contours for standardization of automatic contouring.
Indexed as
Identifiers
26567163What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.