Quantitative analysis has tremendous but mostly unrealized potential in healthcare to support objective and accurate interpretation of the clinical imaging. In 2008, the National Cancer Institute began building the Quantitative Imaging Network (QIN) initiative with the goal of advancing quantitative imaging in the context of personalized therapy and evaluation of treatment response. Computerized analysis is an important component contributing to reproducibility and efficiency of the quantitative imaging techniques. The success of quantitative imaging is contingent on robust analysis methods and software tools to bring these methods from bench to bedside. 3D Slicer is a free open source software application for medical image computing. As a clinical research tool, 3D Slicer is similar to a radiology workstation that supports versatile visualizations but also provides advanced functionality such as automated segmentation and registration for a variety of application domains. Unlike a typical radiology workstation, 3D Slicer is free and is not tied to specific hardware. As a programming platform, 3D Slicer facilitates translation and evaluation of the new quantitative methods by allowing the biomedical researcher to focus on the implementation of the algorithm, and providing abstractions for the common tasks of data communication, visualization and user interface development. Compared to other tools that provide aspects of this functionality, 3D Slicer is fully open source and can be readily extended and redistributed. In addition, 3D Slicer is designed to facilitate the development of new functionality in the form of 3D Slicer extensions.In this paper, we present an overview of 3D Slicer as a platform for prototyping, development and evaluation of image analysis tools for clinical research applications. To illustrate the utility of the platform in the scope of QIN, we discuss several use cases of 3D Slicer by the existing QIN teams,

This paper presents a comparison study between 10 automatic and six interactive methods for liver segmentation from contrast-enhanced CT images. It is based on results from the "MICCAI 2007 Grand Challenge" workshop, where 16 teams evaluated their algorithms on a common database. A collection of 20 clinical images with reference segmentations was provided to train and tune algorithms in advance. Participants were also allowed to use additional proprietary training data for that purpose. All teams then had to apply their methods to 10 test datasets and submit the obtained results. Employed algorithms include statistical shape models, atlas registration, level-sets, graph-cuts and rule-based systems. All results were compared to reference segmentations five error measures that highlight different aspects of segmentation accuracy. All measures were combined according to a specific scoring system relating the obtained values to human expert variability. In general, interactive methods reached higher average scores than automatic approaches and featured a better consistency of segmentation quality. However, the best automatic methods (mainly based on statistical shape models with some additional free deformation) could compete well on the majority of test images. The study provides an insight in performance of different segmentation approaches under real-world conditions and highlights achievements and limitations of current image analysis techniques.

Abstract. This paper describes a framework for evaluating airway extraction algorithms in a standardized manner and establishing reference segmentations that can be used for future algorithm development. Because of the sheer difficulty of constructing a complete reference standard manually, we propose to construct a reference using results from the algorithms being compared, by splitting each airway tree segmentation result into individual branch segments that are subsequently visually inspected by trained observers. Using the so constructed reference, a total of seven performance measures covering different aspects of segmentation quality are computed. We evaluated 15 airway tree extraction algorithms from different research groups on a diverse set of 20 chest CT scans from subjects ranging from healthy volunteers to patients with severe lung disease, who were scanned at different sites, with several different CT scanner models, and using a variety of scanning protocols and reconstruction parameters.

No abstract

No abstract