Variability in accuracy of prostate cancer segmentation among radiologists, urologists, and scientists

被引:17
|
作者
Chen, Michael Y. [1 ,2 ,3 ,4 ]
Woodruff, Maria A. [1 ]
Dasgupta, Prokar [5 ]
Rukin, Nicholas J. [1 ,2 ,3 ,4 ]
机构
[1] Queensland Univ Technol, Sci & Engn Fac, Brisbane, Qld, Australia
[2] Metro North Hosp & Hlth Serv, Redcliffe Hosp, Herston, Qld, Australia
[3] Univ Queensland, Sch Med, Brisbane, Qld, Australia
[4] Metro North Hosp & Hlth Serv, Herston Biofabricat Inst, Brisbane, Qld, Australia
[5] Kings Coll London, Guys Hosp, London, England
来源
CANCER MEDICINE | 2020年 / 9卷 / 19期
关键词
3D printing; 3D model; MRI; prostate; segmentation; MODELS; UTILITY;
D O I
10.1002/cam4.3386
中图分类号
R73 [肿瘤学];
学科分类号
100214 ;
摘要
Background There is increasing research in using segmentation of prostate cancer to create a digital 3D model from magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans for purposes of education or surgical planning. However, the variation in segmentation of prostate cancer among users and potential inaccuracy has not been studied. Methods Four consultant radiologists, four consultant urologists, four urology trainees, and four nonclinician segmentation scientists were asked to segment a single slice of a lateral T3 prostate tumor on MRI ("Prostate 1"), an anterior zone prostate tumor MRI ("Prostate 2"), and a kidney tumor computed tomography (CT) scan ("Kidney"). Time taken and self-rated subjective accuracy out of a maximum score of 10 were recorded. Root mean square error, Dice coefficient, Matthews correlation coefficient, Jaccard index, specificity, and sensitivity were calculated using the radiologists as the ground truth. Results There was high variance among the radiologists in segmentation of Prostate 1 and 2 tumors with mean Dice coefficients of 0.81 and 0.58, respectively, compared to 0.96 for the kidney tumor. Urologists and urology trainees had similar accuracy, while nonclinicians had the lowest accuracy scores for Prostate 1 and 2 tumors (0.60 and 0.47) but similar for kidney tumor (0.95). Mean sensitivity in Prostate 1 (0.63) and Prostate 2 (0.61) was lower than specificity (0.92 and 0.93) suggesting under-segmentation of tumors in the non-radiologist groups. Participants spent less time on the kidney tumor segmentation and self-rated accuracy was higher than both prostate tumors. Conclusion Segmentation of prostate cancers is more difficult than other anatomy such as kidney tumors. Less experienced participants appear to under-segment models and underestimate the size of prostate tumors. Segmentation of prostate cancer is highly variable even among radiologists, and 3D modeling for clinical use must be performed with caution. Further work to develop a methodology to maximize segmentation accuracy is needed.
引用
收藏
页码:7172 / 7182
页数:11
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Accuracy of prostate cancer 3D segmentation: a comparison between radiologists, urologists and researchers
    Chen, M.
    Woodruff, M.
    Dasgupta, P.
    Rukin, N.
    BJU INTERNATIONAL, 2020, 125 : 70 - 70
  • [2] Variability in prostate cancer detection among radiologists and urologists using MRI fusion biopsy
    Patel, Hiten D.
    Halgrimson, Whitney R.
    Sweigert, Sarah E.
    Shea, Steven M.
    Turk, Thomas M. T.
    Quek, Marcus L.
    Gorbonos, Alex
    Flanigan, Robert C.
    Goldberg, Ari
    Gupta, Gopal N.
    BJUI COMPASS, 2024, 5 (02): : 304 - 312
  • [3] Accuracy of ultrasound in estimation of prostate weight: comparison of urologists and radiologists
    Nunez-Nateras, Rafael
    Andrews, Jack R.
    Martin, George L.
    Andrews, Paul E.
    Humphreys, Mitchell R.
    Ferrigni, Robert G.
    Eversman, William G.
    Castle, Erik P.
    CANADIAN JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2010, 17 (01) : 4985 - 4988
  • [4] Variability in patient preparation for prostate biopsy among American urologists
    Shandera, KC
    Thibault, GP
    Deshon, GE
    UROLOGY, 1998, 52 (04) : 644 - 646
  • [5] VARIABILITY IN PROSTATE CANCER DETECTION AMONGST UROLOGISTS AND RADIOLOGISTS IN A HIGH VOLUME MULTIPARAMETRIC MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING FUSION BIOPSY CENTER
    Sweigert, Sarah E.
    Patel, Hiten D.
    Koehne, Elizabeth L.
    Shea, Steven M.
    Flanigan, Robert C.
    Quek, Marcus L.
    Gorbonos, Alex
    Goldberg, Ari
    Gupta, Gopal N.
    JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2021, 206 : E85 - E86
  • [6] Ultrasonographical features of perinatal testicular torsion: an assessment of interobserver variability among radiologists and pediatric urologists
    Yadav, Priyank
    Erlich, Tomer
    Zlotnik, Margalit
    Khondker, Adree
    O'Kelly, Fardod
    Traubici, Jeffrey
    Chua, Michael E.
    Koyle, Martin A.
    PEDIATRIC SURGERY INTERNATIONAL, 2022, 38 (12) : 2053 - 2058
  • [7] Ultrasonographical features of perinatal testicular torsion: an assessment of interobserver variability among radiologists and pediatric urologists
    Priyank Yadav
    Tomer Erlich
    Margalit Zlotnik
    Adree Khondker
    Fardod O’Kelly
    Jeffrey Traubici
    Michael E. Chua
    Martin A. Koyle
    Pediatric Surgery International, 2022, 38 : 2053 - 2058
  • [8] Prostate gland - what would urologists like to know from radiologists?
    Liehr, U. B.
    Baumunk, D.
    Blaschke, S.
    Fischbach, F.
    Friebe, B.
    Koenig, F.
    Lemke, A.
    Mittelstaedt, P.
    Pech, M.
    Porsch, M.
    Ricke, J.
    Schindele, D.
    Siedentopf, S.
    Wendler, J. J.
    Schostak, M.
    RADIOLOGE, 2017, 57 (08): : 608 - 614
  • [9] Documenting Horizontal Integration Among Urologists Who Treat Prostate Cancer
    Mitchell, Jean M.
    Gresenz, Carole Roan
    MEDICAL CARE RESEARCH AND REVIEW, 2022, 79 (01) : 141 - 150
  • [10] How are we going to train a generation of radiologists (and urologists) to read prostate MRI?
    Puech, Philippe
    Randazzo, Marco
    Ouzzane, Adil
    Gaillard, Vianney
    Rastinehad, Ardeshir
    Lemaitre, Laurent
    Villers, Arnauld
    CURRENT OPINION IN UROLOGY, 2015, 25 (06) : 522 - 535