IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0164891.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Glioblastoma Segmentation: Comparison of Three Different Software Packages

Author

Listed:
  • Even Hovig Fyllingen
  • Anne Line Stensjøen
  • Erik Magnus Berntsen
  • Ole Solheim
  • Ingerid Reinertsen

Abstract

To facilitate a more widespread use of volumetric tumor segmentation in clinical studies, there is an urgent need for reliable, user-friendly segmentation software. The aim of this study was therefore to compare three different software packages for semi-automatic brain tumor segmentation of glioblastoma; namely BrainVoyagerTM QX, ITK-Snap and 3D Slicer, and to make data available for future reference. Pre-operative, contrast enhanced T1-weighted 1.5 or 3 Tesla Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) scans were obtained in 20 consecutive patients who underwent surgery for glioblastoma. MRI scans were segmented twice in each software package by two investigators. Intra-rater, inter-rater and between-software agreement was compared by using differences of means with 95% limits of agreement (LoA), Dice’s similarity coefficients (DSC) and Hausdorff distance (HD). Time expenditure of segmentations was measured using a stopwatch. Eighteen tumors were included in the analyses. Inter-rater agreement was highest for BrainVoyager with difference of means of 0.19 mL and 95% LoA from -2.42 mL to 2.81 mL. Between-software agreement and 95% LoA were very similar for the different software packages. Intra-rater, inter-rater and between-software DSC were ≥ 0.93 in all analyses. Time expenditure was approximately 41 min per segmentation in BrainVoyager, and 18 min per segmentation in both 3D Slicer and ITK-Snap. Our main findings were that there is a high agreement within and between the software packages in terms of small intra-rater, inter-rater and between-software differences of means and high Dice’s similarity coefficients. Time expenditure was highest for BrainVoyager, but all software packages were relatively time-consuming, which may limit usability in an everyday clinical setting.

Suggested Citation

  • Even Hovig Fyllingen & Anne Line Stensjøen & Erik Magnus Berntsen & Ole Solheim & Ingerid Reinertsen, 2016. "Glioblastoma Segmentation: Comparison of Three Different Software Packages," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(10), pages 1-16, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0164891
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0164891
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0164891
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0164891&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0164891?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0164891. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.