Cargando…

Standardised lesion segmentation for imaging biomarker quantitation: a consensus recommendation from ESR and EORTC

BACKGROUND: Lesion/tissue segmentation on digital medical images enables biomarker extraction, image-guided therapy delivery, treatment response measurement, and training/validation for developing artificial intelligence algorithms and workflows. To ensure data reproducibility, criteria for standard...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: deSouza, Nandita M., van der Lugt, Aad, Deroose, Christophe M., Alberich-Bayarri, Angel, Bidaut, Luc, Fournier, Laure, Costaridou, Lena, Oprea-Lager, Daniela E., Kotter, Elmar, Smits, Marion, Mayerhoefer, Marius E., Boellaard, Ronald, Caroli, Anna, de Geus-Oei, Lioe-Fee, Kunz, Wolfgang G., Oei, Edwin H., Lecouvet, Frederic, Franca, Manuela, Loewe, Christian, Lopci, Egesta, Caramella, Caroline, Persson, Anders, Golay, Xavier, Dewey, Marc, O’Connor, James P. B., deGraaf, Pim, Gatidis, Sergios, Zahlmann, Gudrun
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer Vienna 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9532485/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36194301
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13244-022-01287-4
_version_ 1784802122464755712
author deSouza, Nandita M.
van der Lugt, Aad
Deroose, Christophe M.
Alberich-Bayarri, Angel
Bidaut, Luc
Fournier, Laure
Costaridou, Lena
Oprea-Lager, Daniela E.
Kotter, Elmar
Smits, Marion
Mayerhoefer, Marius E.
Boellaard, Ronald
Caroli, Anna
de Geus-Oei, Lioe-Fee
Kunz, Wolfgang G.
Oei, Edwin H.
Lecouvet, Frederic
Franca, Manuela
Loewe, Christian
Lopci, Egesta
Caramella, Caroline
Persson, Anders
Golay, Xavier
Dewey, Marc
O’Connor, James P. B.
deGraaf, Pim
Gatidis, Sergios
Zahlmann, Gudrun
author_facet deSouza, Nandita M.
van der Lugt, Aad
Deroose, Christophe M.
Alberich-Bayarri, Angel
Bidaut, Luc
Fournier, Laure
Costaridou, Lena
Oprea-Lager, Daniela E.
Kotter, Elmar
Smits, Marion
Mayerhoefer, Marius E.
Boellaard, Ronald
Caroli, Anna
de Geus-Oei, Lioe-Fee
Kunz, Wolfgang G.
Oei, Edwin H.
Lecouvet, Frederic
Franca, Manuela
Loewe, Christian
Lopci, Egesta
Caramella, Caroline
Persson, Anders
Golay, Xavier
Dewey, Marc
O’Connor, James P. B.
deGraaf, Pim
Gatidis, Sergios
Zahlmann, Gudrun
author_sort deSouza, Nandita M.
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Lesion/tissue segmentation on digital medical images enables biomarker extraction, image-guided therapy delivery, treatment response measurement, and training/validation for developing artificial intelligence algorithms and workflows. To ensure data reproducibility, criteria for standardised segmentation are critical but currently unavailable. METHODS: A modified Delphi process initiated by the European Imaging Biomarker Alliance (EIBALL) of the European Society of Radiology (ESR) and the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Imaging Group was undertaken. Three multidisciplinary task forces addressed modality and image acquisition, segmentation methodology itself, and standards and logistics. Devised survey questions were fed via a facilitator to expert participants. The 58 respondents to Round 1 were invited to participate in Rounds 2–4. Subsequent rounds were informed by responses of previous rounds. RESULTS/CONCLUSIONS: Items with ≥ 75% consensus are considered a recommendation. These include system performance certification, thresholds for image signal-to-noise, contrast-to-noise and tumour-to-background ratios, spatial resolution, and artefact levels. Direct, iterative, and machine or deep learning reconstruction methods, use of a mixture of CE marked and verified research tools were agreed and use of specified reference standards and validation processes considered essential. Operator training and refreshment were considered mandatory for clinical trials and clinical research. Items with a 60–74% agreement require reporting (site-specific accreditation for clinical research, minimal pixel number within lesion segmented, use of post-reconstruction algorithms, operator training refreshment for clinical practice). Items with ≤ 60% agreement are outside current recommendations for segmentation (frequency of system performance tests, use of only CE-marked tools, board certification of operators, frequency of operator refresher training). Recommendations by anatomical area are also specified.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9532485
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher Springer Vienna
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-95324852022-10-20 Standardised lesion segmentation for imaging biomarker quantitation: a consensus recommendation from ESR and EORTC deSouza, Nandita M. van der Lugt, Aad Deroose, Christophe M. Alberich-Bayarri, Angel Bidaut, Luc Fournier, Laure Costaridou, Lena Oprea-Lager, Daniela E. Kotter, Elmar Smits, Marion Mayerhoefer, Marius E. Boellaard, Ronald Caroli, Anna de Geus-Oei, Lioe-Fee Kunz, Wolfgang G. Oei, Edwin H. Lecouvet, Frederic Franca, Manuela Loewe, Christian Lopci, Egesta Caramella, Caroline Persson, Anders Golay, Xavier Dewey, Marc O’Connor, James P. B. deGraaf, Pim Gatidis, Sergios Zahlmann, Gudrun Insights Imaging Guideline BACKGROUND: Lesion/tissue segmentation on digital medical images enables biomarker extraction, image-guided therapy delivery, treatment response measurement, and training/validation for developing artificial intelligence algorithms and workflows. To ensure data reproducibility, criteria for standardised segmentation are critical but currently unavailable. METHODS: A modified Delphi process initiated by the European Imaging Biomarker Alliance (EIBALL) of the European Society of Radiology (ESR) and the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Imaging Group was undertaken. Three multidisciplinary task forces addressed modality and image acquisition, segmentation methodology itself, and standards and logistics. Devised survey questions were fed via a facilitator to expert participants. The 58 respondents to Round 1 were invited to participate in Rounds 2–4. Subsequent rounds were informed by responses of previous rounds. RESULTS/CONCLUSIONS: Items with ≥ 75% consensus are considered a recommendation. These include system performance certification, thresholds for image signal-to-noise, contrast-to-noise and tumour-to-background ratios, spatial resolution, and artefact levels. Direct, iterative, and machine or deep learning reconstruction methods, use of a mixture of CE marked and verified research tools were agreed and use of specified reference standards and validation processes considered essential. Operator training and refreshment were considered mandatory for clinical trials and clinical research. Items with a 60–74% agreement require reporting (site-specific accreditation for clinical research, minimal pixel number within lesion segmented, use of post-reconstruction algorithms, operator training refreshment for clinical practice). Items with ≤ 60% agreement are outside current recommendations for segmentation (frequency of system performance tests, use of only CE-marked tools, board certification of operators, frequency of operator refresher training). Recommendations by anatomical area are also specified. Springer Vienna 2022-10-04 /pmc/articles/PMC9532485/ /pubmed/36194301 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13244-022-01287-4 Text en © The Author(s) 2022 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) .
spellingShingle Guideline
deSouza, Nandita M.
van der Lugt, Aad
Deroose, Christophe M.
Alberich-Bayarri, Angel
Bidaut, Luc
Fournier, Laure
Costaridou, Lena
Oprea-Lager, Daniela E.
Kotter, Elmar
Smits, Marion
Mayerhoefer, Marius E.
Boellaard, Ronald
Caroli, Anna
de Geus-Oei, Lioe-Fee
Kunz, Wolfgang G.
Oei, Edwin H.
Lecouvet, Frederic
Franca, Manuela
Loewe, Christian
Lopci, Egesta
Caramella, Caroline
Persson, Anders
Golay, Xavier
Dewey, Marc
O’Connor, James P. B.
deGraaf, Pim
Gatidis, Sergios
Zahlmann, Gudrun
Standardised lesion segmentation for imaging biomarker quantitation: a consensus recommendation from ESR and EORTC
title Standardised lesion segmentation for imaging biomarker quantitation: a consensus recommendation from ESR and EORTC
title_full Standardised lesion segmentation for imaging biomarker quantitation: a consensus recommendation from ESR and EORTC
title_fullStr Standardised lesion segmentation for imaging biomarker quantitation: a consensus recommendation from ESR and EORTC
title_full_unstemmed Standardised lesion segmentation for imaging biomarker quantitation: a consensus recommendation from ESR and EORTC
title_short Standardised lesion segmentation for imaging biomarker quantitation: a consensus recommendation from ESR and EORTC
title_sort standardised lesion segmentation for imaging biomarker quantitation: a consensus recommendation from esr and eortc
topic Guideline
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9532485/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36194301
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13244-022-01287-4
work_keys_str_mv AT desouzananditam standardisedlesionsegmentationforimagingbiomarkerquantitationaconsensusrecommendationfromesrandeortc
AT vanderlugtaad standardisedlesionsegmentationforimagingbiomarkerquantitationaconsensusrecommendationfromesrandeortc
AT deroosechristophem standardisedlesionsegmentationforimagingbiomarkerquantitationaconsensusrecommendationfromesrandeortc
AT alberichbayarriangel standardisedlesionsegmentationforimagingbiomarkerquantitationaconsensusrecommendationfromesrandeortc
AT bidautluc standardisedlesionsegmentationforimagingbiomarkerquantitationaconsensusrecommendationfromesrandeortc
AT fournierlaure standardisedlesionsegmentationforimagingbiomarkerquantitationaconsensusrecommendationfromesrandeortc
AT costaridoulena standardisedlesionsegmentationforimagingbiomarkerquantitationaconsensusrecommendationfromesrandeortc
AT oprealagerdanielae standardisedlesionsegmentationforimagingbiomarkerquantitationaconsensusrecommendationfromesrandeortc
AT kotterelmar standardisedlesionsegmentationforimagingbiomarkerquantitationaconsensusrecommendationfromesrandeortc
AT smitsmarion standardisedlesionsegmentationforimagingbiomarkerquantitationaconsensusrecommendationfromesrandeortc
AT mayerhoefermariuse standardisedlesionsegmentationforimagingbiomarkerquantitationaconsensusrecommendationfromesrandeortc
AT boellaardronald standardisedlesionsegmentationforimagingbiomarkerquantitationaconsensusrecommendationfromesrandeortc
AT carolianna standardisedlesionsegmentationforimagingbiomarkerquantitationaconsensusrecommendationfromesrandeortc
AT degeusoeilioefee standardisedlesionsegmentationforimagingbiomarkerquantitationaconsensusrecommendationfromesrandeortc
AT kunzwolfgangg standardisedlesionsegmentationforimagingbiomarkerquantitationaconsensusrecommendationfromesrandeortc
AT oeiedwinh standardisedlesionsegmentationforimagingbiomarkerquantitationaconsensusrecommendationfromesrandeortc
AT lecouvetfrederic standardisedlesionsegmentationforimagingbiomarkerquantitationaconsensusrecommendationfromesrandeortc
AT francamanuela standardisedlesionsegmentationforimagingbiomarkerquantitationaconsensusrecommendationfromesrandeortc
AT loewechristian standardisedlesionsegmentationforimagingbiomarkerquantitationaconsensusrecommendationfromesrandeortc
AT lopciegesta standardisedlesionsegmentationforimagingbiomarkerquantitationaconsensusrecommendationfromesrandeortc
AT caramellacaroline standardisedlesionsegmentationforimagingbiomarkerquantitationaconsensusrecommendationfromesrandeortc
AT perssonanders standardisedlesionsegmentationforimagingbiomarkerquantitationaconsensusrecommendationfromesrandeortc
AT golayxavier standardisedlesionsegmentationforimagingbiomarkerquantitationaconsensusrecommendationfromesrandeortc
AT deweymarc standardisedlesionsegmentationforimagingbiomarkerquantitationaconsensusrecommendationfromesrandeortc
AT oconnorjamespb standardisedlesionsegmentationforimagingbiomarkerquantitationaconsensusrecommendationfromesrandeortc
AT degraafpim standardisedlesionsegmentationforimagingbiomarkerquantitationaconsensusrecommendationfromesrandeortc
AT gatidissergios standardisedlesionsegmentationforimagingbiomarkerquantitationaconsensusrecommendationfromesrandeortc
AT zahlmanngudrun standardisedlesionsegmentationforimagingbiomarkerquantitationaconsensusrecommendationfromesrandeortc
AT standardisedlesionsegmentationforimagingbiomarkerquantitationaconsensusrecommendationfromesrandeortc
AT standardisedlesionsegmentationforimagingbiomarkerquantitationaconsensusrecommendationfromesrandeortc