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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |