Vis enkel innførsel

dc.contributor.authorFyllingen, Even Hovig
dc.contributor.authorStensjøen, Anne Line
dc.contributor.authorBerntsen, Erik Magnus
dc.contributor.authorReinertsen, Ingerid
dc.contributor.authorSolheim, Ole
dc.date.accessioned2016-10-28T13:45:54Z
dc.date.accessioned2016-10-31T08:33:54Z
dc.date.available2016-10-28T13:45:54Z
dc.date.available2016-10-31T08:33:54Z
dc.date.issued2016
dc.identifier.citationPLoS ONE 2016nb_NO
dc.identifier.issn1932-6203
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/11250/2418224
dc.description.abstractTo facilitate a more widespread use of volumetric tumor segmentation in clinical studies, there is an urgent need for reliable, user-friendly segmentation software. The aim of this study was therefore to compare three different software packages for semi-automatic brain tumor segmentation of glioblastoma; namely BrainVoyagerTM QX, ITK-Snap and 3D Slicer, and to make data available for future reference. Pre-operative, contrast enhanced T1-weighted 1.5 or 3 Tesla Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) scans were obtained in 20 consecutive patients who underwent surgery for glioblastoma. MRI scans were segmented twice in each software package by two investigators. Intra-rater, inter-rater and between-software agreement was compared by using differences of means with 95% limits of agreement (LoA), Dice’s similarity coefficients (DSC) and Hausdorff distance (HD). Time expenditure of segmentations was measured using a stopwatch. Eighteen tumors were included in the analyses. Inter-rater agreement was highest for BrainVoyager with difference of means of 0.19 mL and 95% LoA from -2.42 mL to 2.81 mL. Between-software agreement and 95% LoA were very similar for the different software packages. Intra-rater, inter-rater and between-software DSC were ≥ 0.93 in all analyses. Time expenditure was approximately 41 min per segmentation in BrainVoyager, and 18 min per segmentation in both 3D Slicer and ITK-Snap. Our main findings were that there is a high agreement within and between the software packages in terms of small intra-rater, inter-rater and between-software differences of means and high Dice’s similarity coefficients. Time expenditure was highest for BrainVoyager, but all software packages were relatively time-consuming, which may limit usability in an everyday clinical setting.nb_NO
dc.language.isoengnb_NO
dc.publisherPublic Library of Sciencenb_NO
dc.rightsNavngivelse 3.0 Norge*
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/no/*
dc.titleGlioblastoma Segmentation: Comparison of Three Different Software Packagesnb_NO
dc.typeJournal articlenb_NO
dc.typePeer reviewednb_NO
dc.date.updated2016-10-28T13:45:54Z
dc.source.journalPLoS ONEnb_NO
dc.identifier.doi10.1371/journal.pone.0164891
dc.identifier.cristin1395357
dc.description.localcode© 2016 Fyllingen et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.nb_NO


Tilhørende fil(er)

Thumbnail

Denne innførselen finnes i følgende samling(er)

Vis enkel innførsel

Navngivelse 3.0 Norge
Med mindre annet er angitt, så er denne innførselen lisensiert som Navngivelse 3.0 Norge