AI Article Synopsis
- The study aims to assess the effectiveness and efficiency of a fully convolutional network (FCN) for detecting and segmenting liver lesions in colorectal liver metastases using CT scans.
- It involved a retrospective analysis of over 150 CT examinations and compared automated results with manual segmentation done by a radiologist, looking at various performance metrics such as sensitivity and accuracy.
- Results showed that while automated detection improved efficiency, particularly with larger lesions, the overall agreement between automated and manual methods was only moderately improved when user corrections were applied.
Article Abstract
Purpose: To evaluate the performance, agreement, and efficiency of a fully convolutional network (FCN) for liver lesion detection and segmentation at CT examinations in patients with colorectal liver metastases (CLMs).
Materials And Methods: This retrospective study evaluated an automated method using an FCN that was trained, validated, and tested with 115, 15, and 26 contrast material-enhanced CT examinations containing 261, 22, and 105 lesions, respectively. Manual detection and segmentation by a radiologist was the reference standard. Performance of fully automated and user-corrected segmentations was compared with that of manual segmentations. The interuser agreement and interaction time of manual and user-corrected segmentations were assessed. Analyses included sensitivity and positive predictive value of detection, segmentation accuracy, Cohen κ, Bland-Altman analyses, and analysis of variance.
Results: In the test cohort, for lesion size smaller than 10 mm ( = 30), 10-20 mm ( = 35), and larger than 20 mm ( = 40), the detection sensitivity of the automated method was 10%, 71%, and 85%; positive predictive value was 25%, 83%, and 94%; Dice similarity coefficient was 0.14, 0.53, and 0.68; maximum symmetric surface distance was 5.2, 6.0, and 10.4 mm; and average symmetric surface distance was 2.7, 1.7, and 2.8 mm, respectively. For manual and user-corrected segmentation, κ values were 0.42 (95% confidence interval: 0.24, 0.63) and 0.52 (95% confidence interval: 0.36, 0.72); normalized interreader agreement for lesion volume was -0.10 ± 0.07 (95% confidence interval) and -0.10 ± 0.08; and mean interaction time was 7.7 minutes ± 2.4 (standard deviation) and 4.8 minutes ± 2.1 ( < .001), respectively.
Conclusion: Automated detection and segmentation of CLM by using deep learning with convolutional neural networks, when manually corrected, improved efficiency but did not substantially change agreement on volumetric measurements.© RSNA, 2019
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
|---|---|
| http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8017429 | PMC |
| http://dx.doi.org/10.1148/ryai.2019180014 | DOI Listing |
Publication Analysis
Top Keywords
Similar Publications
Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!