Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30286184›Full record

ArticlePloS one2018

Lung tumor segmentation methods: Impact on the uncertainty of radiomics features for non-small cell lung cancer.

Constance A Owens, Christine B Peterson, Chad Tang, Eugene J Koay, Wen Yu, Dennis S Mackin, Jing Li, Mohammad R Salehpour, David T Fuentes, Laurence E Court and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 44 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
44citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

44 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Intra- and interobserver assessments of intestinal wall thickness and segmentations from transverse sections of feline abdominal ultrasound images.Veterinary radiology & ultrasound : the official journal of the American College of Veterinary Radiology and the International Veterinary Radiology Association · 2023
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors.

Constance A OwensDepartment of Radiation Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0001-7208-394X
Christine B PetersonThe University of Texas Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences at Houston, Houston, Texas, United States of America.
Chad TangDepartment of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, United States of America.
Eugene J KoayDepartment of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, United States of America.
Wen YuDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Shanghai Chest Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China.
Dennis S MackinDepartment of Radiation Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0002-2557-5340
Jing LiDepartment of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, United States of America.
Mohammad R SalehpourDepartment of Radiation Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0002-8090-2770
David T FuentesDepartment of Imaging Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, United States of America.
Laurence E CourtDepartment of Radiation Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, United States of America.
Jinzhong YangDepartment of Radiation Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0002-9254-4501

Funding

Tumor Evolution and Metastasis ProgramP30CA016672 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF TX MD ANDERSON CAN CTR · PI Kathrin Milbury · 1985 to 2026
$290.8M
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA016672
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo evaluate the uncertainty of radiomics features from contrast-enhanced breath-hold helical CT scans of non-small cell lung cancer for both manual and semi-automatic segmentation due to intra-observer, inter-observer, and inter-software reliability.

methodsThree radiation oncologists manually delineated lung tumors twice from 10 CT scans using two software tools (3D-Slicer and MIM Maestro). Additionally, three observers without formal clinical training were instructed to use two semi-automatic segmentation tools, Lesion Sizing Toolkit (LSTK) and GrowCut, to delineate the same tumor volumes. The accuracy of the semi-automatic contours was assessed by comparison with physician manual contours using Dice similarity coefficients and Hausdorff distances. Eighty-three radiomics features were calculated for each delineated tumor contour. Informative features were identified based on their dynamic range and correlation to other features. Feature reliability was then evaluated using intra-class correlation coefficients (ICC). Feature range was used to evaluate the uncertainty of the segmentation methods.

resultsFrom the initial set of 83 features, 40 radiomics features were found to be informative, and these 40 features were used in the subsequent analyses. For both intra-observer and inter-observer reliability, LSTK had higher reliability than GrowCut and the two manual segmentation tools. All observers achieved consistently high ICC values when using LSTK, but the ICC value varied greatly for each observer when using GrowCut and the manual segmentation tools. For inter-software reliability, features were not reproducible across the software tools for either manual or semi-automatic segmentation methods. Additionally, no feature category was found to be more reproducible than another feature category. Feature ranges of LSTK contours were smaller than those of manual contours for all features.

conclusionRadiomics features extracted from LSTK contours were highly reliable across and among observers. With semi-automatic segmentation tools, observers without formal clinical training were comparable to physicians in evaluating tumor segmentation.

Indexed as

UncertaintyCarcinoma, Non-Small-Cell LungHumansImage Processing, Computer-AssistedLung NeoplasmsObserver VariationSoftwareTomography, X-Ray Computed

Identifiers

PMID30286184
PMCPMC6171919

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC0
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.