Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32226030›Full record

ArticlePloS one2020

PET segmentation of bulky tumors: Strategies and workflows to improve inter-observer variability.

Elisabeth Pfaehler, Coreline Burggraaff, Gem Kramer, Josée Zijlstra, Otto S Hoekstra, Mathilde Jalving, Walter Noordzij, Adrienne H Brouwers, Marc G Stevenson, Johan de Jong and 1 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed
2.3field-weighted citation impact, top 9% of its field
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

17 citing papers in PubMed, 24 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Physical and engineering sciences in medicine · 2025
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Advances and challenges in immunoPET methodology.Frontiers in nuclear medicine · 2024
    Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. 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 · 2021
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Artificial intelligence in molecular imaging.Annals of translational medicine · 2021
    Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Elisabeth PfaehlerNuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-6160-3011
Coreline BurggraaffDepartment of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Gem KramerDepartment of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Josée ZijlstraDepartment of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Otto S HoekstraDepartment of Oncology Medicine, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Mathilde JalvingDepartment of Oncology Medicine, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Walter NoordzijNuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Adrienne H BrouwersNuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Marc G StevensonDepartment of Surgical Oncology, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Johan de JongNuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Ronald BoellaardNuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
University Medical Center Groningen · NLCancer Center Amsterdam · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPET-based tumor delineation is an error prone and labor intensive part of image analysis. Especially for patients with advanced disease showing bulky tumor FDG load, segmentations are challenging. Reducing the amount of user-interaction in the segmentation might help to facilitate segmentation tasks especially when labeling bulky and complex tumors. Therefore, this study reports on segmentation workflows/strategies that may reduce the inter-observer variability for large tumors with complex shapes with different levels of user-interaction.

methodsTwenty PET images of bulky tumors were delineated independently by six observers using four strategies: (I) manual, (II) interactive threshold-based, (III) interactive threshold-based segmentation with the additional presentation of the PET-gradient image and (IV) the selection of the most reasonable result out of four established semi-automatic segmentation algorithms (Select-the-best approach). The segmentations were compared using Jaccard coefficients (JC) and percentage volume differences. To obtain a reference standard, a majority vote (MV) segmentation was calculated including all segmentations of experienced observers. Performed and MV segmentations were compared regarding positive predictive value (PPV), sensitivity (SE), and percentage volume differences.

resultsThe results show that with decreasing user-interaction the inter-observer variability decreases. JC values and percentage volume differences of Select-the-best and a workflow including gradient information were significantly better than the measurements of the other segmentation strategies (p-value<0.01). Interactive threshold-based and manual segmentations also result in significant lower and more variable PPV/SE values when compared with the MV segmentation.

conclusionsFDG PET segmentations of bulky tumors using strategies with lower user-interaction showed less inter-observer variability. None of the methods led to good results in all cases, but use of either the gradient or the Select-the-best workflow did outperform the other strategies tested and may be a good candidate for fast and reliable labeling of bulky and heterogeneous tumors.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsPositron-Emission TomographyTumor BurdenWorkflowHumansImage Processing, Computer-AssistedNeoplasmsObserver Variation

Identifiers

PMID32226030
PMCPMC7105134
OpenAlexW3012988750

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.