Investigative Magnetic Resonance Imaging

Korean Society of Magnetic Resonance in Medicine (대한자기공명의과학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Measurement of Apparent Diffusion Coefficient Values from Diffusion-Weighted MRI: A Comparison of Manual and Semiautomatic Segmentation Methods

  • Kim, Seong Ho (Department of Radiology, Seoul National University College of Medicine) ;
  • Choi, Seung Hong (Department of Radiology, Seoul National University College of Medicine) ;
  • Yoon, Tae Jin (Department of Radiology, Seoul National University College of Medicine) ;
  • Kim, Tae Min (Department of Internal Medicine, Cancer Research Institute, Seoul National University College of Medicine) ;
  • Lee, Se-Hoon (Department of Internal Medicine, Cancer Research Institute, Seoul National University College of Medicine) ;
  • Park, Chul-Kee (Department of Neurosurgery, Seoul National University College of Medicine) ;
  • Kim, Ji-Hoon (Department of Radiology, Seoul National University College of Medicine) ;
  • Sohn, Chul-Ho (Department of Radiology, Seoul National University College of Medicine) ;
  • Park, Sung-Hye (Department of Pathology, Seoul National University College of Medicine) ;
  • Kim, Il Han (Department of Radiation Oncology, Cancer Research Institute, Seoul National University College of Medicine)
  • Received : 2015.04.06
  • Accepted : 2015.05.07
  • Published : 2015.06.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Purpose: To compare the interobserver and intraobserver reliability of mean apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) values using contrast-enhanced (CE) T1 weighted image (WI) and T2WI as structural images between manual and semiautomatic segmentation methods. Materials and Methods: Between January 2011 and May 2013, 28 patients who underwent brain MR with diffusion weighted image (DWI) and were pathologically confirmed as having glioblastoma participated in our study. The ADC values were measured twice in manual and semiautomatic segmentation methods using CE-T1WI and T2WI as structural images to obtain interobserver and intraobserver reliability. Moreover, intraobserver reliabilities of the different segmentation methods were assessed after subgrouping of the patients based on the MR findings. Results: Interobserver and intraobserver reliabilities were high in both manual and semiautomatic segmentation methods on CE-T1WI-based evaluation, while interobserver reliability on T2WI-based evaluation was not high enough to be used in a clinical context. The intraobserver reliability was particularly lower with the T2WI-based semiautomatic segmentation method in the subgroups with involved $lobes{\leq}2$, with partially demarcated tumor borders, poorly demarcated inner margins of the necrotic portion, and with perilesional edema. Conclusion: Both the manual and semiautomatic segmentation methods on CE-T1WI-based evaluation were clinically acceptable in the measurement of mean ADC values with high interobserver and intraobserver reliabilities.

Keywords

References

  1. Schwartzbaum JA, Fisher JL, Aldape KD, Wrensch M. Epidemiology and molecular pathology of glioma. Nat Clin Pract Neurol 2006;2:494-503; quiz 491 p following 516
  2. Law M, Young R, Babb J, Pollack E, Johnson G. Histogram analysis versus region of interest analysis of dynamic susceptibility contrast perfusion MR imaging data in the grading of cerebral gliomas. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2007;28:761-766
  3. Sugahara T, Korogi Y, Kochi M, et al. Usefulness of diffusion-weighted MRI with echo-planar technique in the evaluation of cellularity in gliomas. J Magn Reson Imaging 1999;9:53-60 https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1522-2586(199901)9:1<53::AID-JMRI7>3.0.CO;2-2
  4. Kang Y, Choi SH, Kim YJ, et al. Gliomas: Histogram analysis of apparent diffusion coefficient maps with standard- or high-b-value diffusion-weighted MR imaging--correlation with tumor grade. Radiology 2011;261:882-890 https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.11110686
  5. Provenzale JM, Mukundan S, Barboriak DP. Diffusionweighted and perfusion MR imaging for brain tumor characterization and assessment of treatment response. Radiology 2006;239:632-649 https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2393042031
  6. Murakami R, Hirai T, Sugahara T, et al. Grading astrocytic tumors by using apparent diffusion coefficient parameters: superiority of a one- versus two-parameter pilot method. Radiology 2009;251:838-845 https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2513080899
  7. Murakami R, Hirai T, Kitajima M, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging of pilocytic astrocytomas: usefulness of the minimum apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) value for differentiation from high-grade gliomas. Acta Radiol 2008;49:462-467 https://doi.org/10.1080/02841850801918555
  8. Huo J, Okada K, Kim HJ, Pope WB, Goldin JG, Alger JR. CADrx for GBM brain tumors: predicting treatment response from changes in diffusion-weighted MRI. Algorithms 2009;2:1350-1367 https://doi.org/10.3390/a2041350
  9. Pope WB, Kim HJ, Huo J, et al. Recurrent glioblastoma multiforme: ADC histogram analysis predicts response to bevacizumab treatment. Radiology 2009;252:182-189 https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2521081534
  10. Fletcher-Heath LM, Hall LO, Goldgof DB, Murtagh FR. Automatic segmentation of non-enhancing brain tumors in magnetic resonance images. Artif Intell Med 2001;21:43-63 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0933-3657(00)00073-7
  11. Clark MC, Hall LO, Goldgof DB, Velthuizen R, Murtagh FR, Silbiger MS. Automatic tumor segmentation using knowledge-based techniques. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 1998;17:187-201 https://doi.org/10.1109/42.700731
  12. Nie J, Xue Z, Liu T, et al. Automated brain tumor segmentation using spatial accuracy-weighted hidden Markov Random Field. Comput Med Imaging Graph 2009;33:431-441 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compmedimag.2009.04.006
  13. Kaus MR, Warfield SK, Nabavi A, Black PM, Jolesz FA, Kikinis R. Automated segmentation of MR images of brain tumors. Radiology 2001;218:586-591 https://doi.org/10.1148/radiology.218.2.r01fe44586
  14. Corso JJ, Sharon E, Dube S, El-Saden S, Sinha U, Yuille A. Efficient multilevel brain tumor segmentation with integrated bayesian model classification. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 2008;27:629-640 https://doi.org/10.1109/TMI.2007.912817
  15. Bjornerud A. The ICE software package: direct coregistration of anatomical and functional datasets using DICOM image geometry information. Proc Hum Brain Mapping 2003;19:1018p
  16. Sundar H, Shen D, Biros G, Xu C, Davatzikos C. Robust computation of mutual information using spatially adaptive meshes. Med Image Comput Comput Assist Interv 2007;10:950-958
  17. Pluim JP, Maintz JB, Viergever MA. Mutual-informationbased registration of medical images: a survey. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 2003;22:986-1004 https://doi.org/10.1109/TMI.2003.815867
  18. Reed GF, Lynn F, Meade BD. Use of coefficient of variation in assessing variability of quantitative assays. Clin Diagn Lab Immunol 2002;9:1235-1239
  19. Jung SC, Choi SH, Yeom JA, et al. Cerebral blood volume analysis in glioblastomas using dynamic susceptibility contrast-enhanced perfusion MRI: a comparison of manual and semiautomatic segmentation methods. PLoS One 2013;8:e69323 https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0069323
  20. Emblem KE, Nedregaard B, Hald JK, Nome T, Due-Tonnessen P, Bjornerud A. Automatic glioma characterization from dynamic susceptibility contrast imaging: brain tumor segmentation using knowledge-based fuzzy clustering. J Magn Reson Imaging 2009;30:1-10 https://doi.org/10.1002/jmri.21815
  21. Prastawa M, Bullitt E, Moon N, Van Leemput K, Gerig G. Automatic brain tumor segmentation by subject specific modification of atlas priors. Acad Radiol 2003;10:1341-1348 https://doi.org/10.1016/S1076-6332(03)00506-3
  22. Hsieh TM, Liu YM, Liao CC, Xiao F, Chiang IJ, Wong JM. Automatic segmentation of meningioma from noncontrasted brain MRI integrating fuzzy clustering and region growing. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 2011;11:54 https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6947-11-54

Cited by

  1. Dynamic Susceptibility Contrast (DSC) Perfusion MR in the Prediction of Long-Term Survival of Glioblastomas (GBM): Correlation with MGMT Promoter Methylation and 1p/19q Deletions vol.22, pp.3, 2018, https://doi.org/10.13104/imri.2018.22.3.158