Evaluation of uterine ultrasound imaging in cervical radiotherapy; a comparison of autoscan and conventional probe

Baker, Mariwan; Cooper, David T.; Behrens, C.F.

doi:10.1259/bjr.20160510

Cited by 2 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 21 publications

(23 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Interobserver manual contour agreement : The DC, DSC, and MSSD values reported here (medians of 5.4 mm, 0.78, and 3.20 mm, respectively) are consistent with those reported in similar studies, though a direct comparison was not possible due to differences in: imaging modalities used, the disease status of the cohort investigated, the anatomical site contoured, and the number of observers. Baker et al reported a median DC of 6.0 mm between contours of two observers in manually delineating the uterus on 3D US on a healthy volunteer cohort . In the literature, reported values of the DSC between manual contours drawn on CT and MRI images for a variety of anatomical sites ranged from ∼ 0.7–0.98 with ∼ 0.7–0.8 generally considered acceptable .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Baker et al reported a median DC of 6.0 mm between contours of two observers in manually delineating the uterus on 3D US on a healthy volunteer cohort. 36 In the literature, reported values of the DSC between manual contours drawn on CT and MRI images for a variety of anatomical sites ranged from 0.7-0.98 25,26,37,38 with 0.7-0.8 generally considered acceptable. [25][26][27] The MSSD between manual contours drawn on US, CT, and MRI images reported in the literature for a variety of anatomical sites ranged from 1-5 mm.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Towards ultrasound-guided adaptive radiotherapy for cervical cancer: Evaluation of Elekta's semiautomated uterine segmentation method on 3D ultrasound images

et al. 2017

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose3D ultrasound (US) images of the uterus may be used to adapt radiotherapy (RT) for cervical cancer patients based on changes in daily anatomy. This requires accurate on‐line segmentation of the uterus. The aim of this work was to assess the accuracy of Elekta's “Assisted Gyne Segmentation” (AGS) algorithm in semi‐automatically segmenting the uterus on 3D transabdominal ultrasound images by comparison with manual contours.Materials & methodsNine patients receiving RT for cervical cancer were imaged with the 3D Clarity® transabdominal probe at RT planning, and 1 to 7 times during treatment. Image quality was rated from unusable (0)–excellent (3). Four experts segmented the uterus (defined as the uterine body and cervix) manually and using AGS on images with a ranking > 0. Pairwise analysis between manual contours was evaluated to determine interobserver variability. The accuracy of the AGS method was assessed by measuring its agreement with manual contours via pairwise analysis.Results35/44 images acquired (79.5%) received a ranking > 0. For the manual contour variation, the median [interquartile range (IQR)] distance between centroids (DC) was 5.41 [5.0] mm, the Dice similarity coefficient (DSC) was 0.78 [0.11], the mean surface‐to‐surface distance (MSSD) was 3.20 [1.8] mm, and the uniform margin of 95% (UM95) was 4.04 [5.8] mm. There was no correlation between image quality and manual contour agreement. AGS failed to give a result in 19.3% of cases. For the remaining cases, the level of agreement between AGS contours and manual contours depended on image quality. There were no significant differences between the AGS segmentations and the manual segmentations on the images that received a quality rating of 3. However, the AGS algorithm had significantly worse agreement with manual contours on images with quality ratings of 1 and 2 compared with the corresponding interobserver manual variation. The overall median [IQR] DC, DSC, MSSD, and UM95 between AGS and manual contours was 5.48 [5.45] mm, 0.77 [0.14], 3.62 [2.7] mm, and 5.19 [8.1] mm, respectively.ConclusionsThe AGS tool was able to represent uterine shape of cervical cancer patients in agreement with manual contouring in cases where the image quality was excellent, but not in cases where image quality was degraded by common artifacts such as shadowing and signal attenuation. The AGS tool should be used with caution for adaptive RT purposes, as it is not reliable in accurately segmenting the uterus on ‘good’ or ‘poor’ quality images. The interobserver agreement between manual contours of the uterus drawn on 3D US was consistent with results of similar studies performed on CT and MRI images.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%