Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33409747›Full record

ArticleEJNMMI research2021

Repeatability of two semi-automatic artificial intelligence approaches for tumor segmentation in PET.

Elisabeth Pfaehler, Liesbet Mesotten, Gem Kramer, Michiel Thomeer, Karolien Vanhove, Johan de Jong, Peter Adriaensens, Otto S Hoekstra, Ronald Boellaard

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in EJNMMI research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing 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

15 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Physical and engineering sciences in medicine · 2025
    Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Automated segmentation of lesions and organs at risk on [Cancer imaging : the official publication of the International Cancer Imaging Society · 2024
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. 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

9 authors.

Elisabeth PfaehlerDepartment of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, Medical Imaging Center, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands. e.a.g.pfaehler@umcg.nl.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6160-3011
Liesbet MesottenFaculty of Medicine and Life Sciences, Hasselt University, Agoralaan Building D, 3590, Diepenbeek, Belgium.
Gem KramerDepartment of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Michiel ThomeerFaculty of Medicine and Life Sciences, Hasselt University, Agoralaan Building D, 3590, Diepenbeek, Belgium.
Karolien VanhoveFaculty of Medicine and Life Sciences, Hasselt University, Agoralaan Building D, 3590, Diepenbeek, Belgium.
Johan de JongDepartment of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, Medical Imaging Center, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Peter AdriaensensInstitute for Materials Research (IMO) - Division Chemistry, Hasselt University, Agoralaan Building D, 3590, Diepenbeek, Belgium.
Otto S HoekstraDepartment of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Ronald BoellaardDepartment of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, Medical Imaging Center, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.

Funding

Pointing Project 10034Strategy Program 14929
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPositron emission tomography (PET) is routinely used for cancer staging and treatment follow-up. Metabolic active tumor volume (MATV) as well as total MATV (TMATV-including primary tumor, lymph nodes and metastasis) and/or total lesion glycolysis derived from PET images have been identified as prognostic factor or for the evaluation of treatment efficacy in cancer patients. To this end, a segmentation approach with high precision and repeatability is important. However, the implementation of a repeatable and accurate segmentation algorithm remains an ongoing challenge.

methodsIn this study, we compare two semi-automatic artificial intelligence (AI)-based segmentation methods with conventional semi-automatic segmentation approaches in terms of repeatability. One segmentation approach is based on a textural feature (TF) segmentation approach designed for accurate and repeatable segmentation of primary tumors and metastasis. Moreover, a convolutional neural network (CNN) is trained. The algorithms are trained, validated and tested using a lung cancer PET dataset. The segmentation accuracy of both segmentation approaches is compared using the Jaccard coefficient (JC). Additionally, the approaches are externally tested on a fully independent test-retest dataset. The repeatability of the methods is compared with those of two majority vote (MV2, MV3) approaches, 41%SUV

resultsThe accuracy of the segmentations with the reference segmentation was good (JC median TF: 0.7, CNN: 0.73). Both segmentation approaches outperformed most other conventional segmentation methods in terms of test-retest coefficient (TRT% mean: TF: 13.0%, CNN: 13.9%, MV2: 14.1%, MV3: 28.1%, 41%SUV

conclusionThe semi-automatic AI-based segmentation approaches used in this study provided better repeatability than conventional segmentation approaches. Moreover, both algorithms lead to accurate segmentations for both primary tumors as well as metastasis and are therefore good candidates for PET tumor segmentation.

Indexed as

Convolutional neural networkRepeatabilityTextural segmentationTumor segmentation PET

Identifiers

PMID33409747
PMCPMC7788118

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.