TY - JOUR
T1 - Volumetry of low-contrast liver lesions with CT
T2 - Investigation of estimation uncertainties in a phantom study
AU - Li, Qin
AU - Liang, Yongguang
AU - Huang, Qiao
AU - Zong, Min
AU - Berman, Benjamin
AU - Gavrielides, Marios A.
AU - Schwartz, Lawrence H.
AU - Zhao, Binsheng
AU - Petrick, Nicholas
N1 - Funding Information:
This work was supported in part by a sub-award of RSNA QIBA through NIH Grant No. HHSN268201300071C. This work was also supported, in part, by a Critical Path grant from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2016 Am. Assoc. Phys. Med.
PY - 2016/12/1
Y1 - 2016/12/1
N2 - Purpose: To evaluate the performance of lesion volumetry in hepatic CT as a function of various imaging acquisition parameters. Methods: An anthropomorphic abdominal phantom with removable liver inserts was designed for this study. Two liver inserts, each containing 19 synthetic lesions with varying diameter (6-40 mm), shape, contrast (10-65 HU), and both homogenous and mixed-density were designed to have background and lesion CT values corresponding to arterial and portal-venous phase imaging, respectively. The two phantoms were scanned using two commercial CT scanners (GE 750 HD and Siemens Biograph mCT) across a set of imaging protocols (four slice thicknesses, three e?ective mAs, two convolution kernels, two pitches). Two repeated scans were collected for each imaging protocol. All scans were analyzed using a matched-flter estimator for volume estimation, resulting in 6080 volume measurements across all of the synthetic lesions in the two liver phantoms. A subset of portal venous phase scans was also analyzed using a semi-automatic segmentation algorithm, resulting in about 900 additional volume measurements. Lesions associated with large measurement error (quantifed by root mean square error) for most imaging protocols were considered not measurable by the volume estimation tools and excluded for the statistical analyses. Imaging protocols were grouped into distinct imaging conditions based on ANOVA analysis of factors for repeatability testing. Statistical analyses, including overall linearity analysis, grouped bias analysis with standard deviation evaluation, and repeatability analysis, were performed to assess the accuracy and precision of the liver lesion volume biomarker. Results: Lesions with lower contrast and size =10 mm were associated with higher measurement error and were excluded from further analysis. Lesion size, contrast, imaging slice thickness, dose, and scanner were found to be factors substantially influencing volume estimation. Twenty-four distinct repeatable imaging conditions were determined as protocols for each scanner with a fxed slice thickness and dose. For the matched-flter estimation approach, strong linearity was observed for all imaging data for lesions =20 mm. For the Siemens scanner with 50 mAs eflective dose at 0.6 mm slice thickness, grouped bias was about -10%. For all other repeatable imaging conditions with both scanners, grouped biases were low (-3%-3%). There was a trend of increasing standard deviation with decreasing dose. For each fxed dose, the standard deviations were similar among the three larger slice thicknesses (1.25, 2.5, 5 mm for GE, 1.5, 3, 5 mm for Siemens). Repeatability coefcients ranged from about 8% to 75% and showed similar trend to grouped standard deviation. For the segmentation approach, the results led to similar conclusions for both lesion characteristic factors and imaging factors but with increasing magnitude in all the error metrics assessed. Conclusions: Results showed that liver lesion volumetry was strongly dependent on lesion size, contrast, acquisition dose, and their interactions. The overall performances were similar for images reconstructed with larger slice thicknesses, clinically used pitches, kernels, and doses. Conditions that yielded repeatable measurements were identifed and they agreed with the Quantitative Imaging Biomarker Alliance's (QIBA) profle requirements in general. The authors fndings also suggestpotential refnements to these guidelines for the tumor volume biomarker, especially for soft-tissue lesions.
AB - Purpose: To evaluate the performance of lesion volumetry in hepatic CT as a function of various imaging acquisition parameters. Methods: An anthropomorphic abdominal phantom with removable liver inserts was designed for this study. Two liver inserts, each containing 19 synthetic lesions with varying diameter (6-40 mm), shape, contrast (10-65 HU), and both homogenous and mixed-density were designed to have background and lesion CT values corresponding to arterial and portal-venous phase imaging, respectively. The two phantoms were scanned using two commercial CT scanners (GE 750 HD and Siemens Biograph mCT) across a set of imaging protocols (four slice thicknesses, three e?ective mAs, two convolution kernels, two pitches). Two repeated scans were collected for each imaging protocol. All scans were analyzed using a matched-flter estimator for volume estimation, resulting in 6080 volume measurements across all of the synthetic lesions in the two liver phantoms. A subset of portal venous phase scans was also analyzed using a semi-automatic segmentation algorithm, resulting in about 900 additional volume measurements. Lesions associated with large measurement error (quantifed by root mean square error) for most imaging protocols were considered not measurable by the volume estimation tools and excluded for the statistical analyses. Imaging protocols were grouped into distinct imaging conditions based on ANOVA analysis of factors for repeatability testing. Statistical analyses, including overall linearity analysis, grouped bias analysis with standard deviation evaluation, and repeatability analysis, were performed to assess the accuracy and precision of the liver lesion volume biomarker. Results: Lesions with lower contrast and size =10 mm were associated with higher measurement error and were excluded from further analysis. Lesion size, contrast, imaging slice thickness, dose, and scanner were found to be factors substantially influencing volume estimation. Twenty-four distinct repeatable imaging conditions were determined as protocols for each scanner with a fxed slice thickness and dose. For the matched-flter estimation approach, strong linearity was observed for all imaging data for lesions =20 mm. For the Siemens scanner with 50 mAs eflective dose at 0.6 mm slice thickness, grouped bias was about -10%. For all other repeatable imaging conditions with both scanners, grouped biases were low (-3%-3%). There was a trend of increasing standard deviation with decreasing dose. For each fxed dose, the standard deviations were similar among the three larger slice thicknesses (1.25, 2.5, 5 mm for GE, 1.5, 3, 5 mm for Siemens). Repeatability coefcients ranged from about 8% to 75% and showed similar trend to grouped standard deviation. For the segmentation approach, the results led to similar conclusions for both lesion characteristic factors and imaging factors but with increasing magnitude in all the error metrics assessed. Conclusions: Results showed that liver lesion volumetry was strongly dependent on lesion size, contrast, acquisition dose, and their interactions. The overall performances were similar for images reconstructed with larger slice thicknesses, clinically used pitches, kernels, and doses. Conditions that yielded repeatable measurements were identifed and they agreed with the Quantitative Imaging Biomarker Alliance's (QIBA) profle requirements in general. The authors fndings also suggestpotential refnements to these guidelines for the tumor volume biomarker, especially for soft-tissue lesions.
KW - computed tomography
KW - liver lesion volumetry
KW - phantom study
KW - quantitative imaging biomarker
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84999097985&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84999097985&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1118/1.4967776
DO - 10.1118/1.4967776
M3 - Article
C2 - 27908157
AN - SCOPUS:84999097985
SN - 0094-2405
VL - 43
SP - 6608
EP - 6620
JO - Medical Physics
JF - Medical Physics
IS - 12
ER -