Intra- and inter-operator variability in MRI-based manual segmentation of HCC lesions and its impact on dosimetry
Tóm tắt
The aim was to quantify inter- and intra-observer variability in manually delineated hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) lesion contours and the resulting impact on radioembolization (RE) dosimetry. Ten patients with HCC lesions treated with Y-90 RE and imaged with post-therapy Y-90 PET/CT were selected for retrospective analysis. Three radiologists contoured 20 lesions manually on baseline multiphase contrast-enhanced MRIs, and two of the radiologists re-contoured at two additional sessions. Contours were transferred to co-registered PET/CT-based Y-90 dose maps. Volume-dependent recovery coefficients were applied for partial volume correction (PVC) when reporting mean absorbed dose. To understand how uncertainty varies with tumor size, we fit power models regressing relative uncertainty in volume and in mean absorbed dose on contour volume. Finally, we determined effects of segmentation uncertainty on tumor control probability (TCP), as calculated using logistic models developed in a previous RE study. The average lesion volume ranged from 1.8 to 194.5 mL, and the mean absorbed dose ranged from 23.4 to 1629.0 Gy. The mean inter-observer Dice coefficient for lesion contours was significantly less than the mean intra-observer Dice coefficient (0.79 vs. 0.85, p < 0.001). Uncertainty in segmented volume, as measured by the Coefficient of Variation (CV), ranged from 4.2 to 34.7% with an average of 17.2%. The CV in mean absorbed dose had an average value of 5.4% (range 1.2–13.1%) without PVC while it was 15.1% (range 1.5–55.2%) with PVC. Using the fitted models for uncertainty as a function of volume on our prior data, the mean change in TCP due to segmentation uncertainty alone was estimated as 16.2% (maximum 48.5%). Though we find relatively high inter- and intra-observer reliability overall, uncertainty in tumor contouring propagates into non-negligible uncertainty in dose metrics and outcome prediction for individual cases that should be considered in dosimetry-guided treatment.
Tài liệu tham khảo
Konijnenberg M, Herrmann K, Kobe C, et al. EANM position paper on article 56 of the council directive 2013/59/Euratom (basic safety standards) for nuclear medicine therapy. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2021;48:67–72.
Pandit-Taskar N, Iravani A, Lee D, et al. Dosimetry in clinical radiopharmaceutical therapy of cancer: practicality versus perfection in current practice. J Nucl Med. 2021;62(Suppl 3):60S-72S.
Garin E, Tselikas L, Guiu B, et al. Personalized versus standard dosimetry approach of selective internal radiation therapy in patients with locally advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (DOSISPHERE-01): a randomized, multicentre, open-label phase 2 trial. Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2021;6(1):17-29.2.
Gear JI, Cox MG, Gustafsson J, Gleisner KS, Murray I, Glatting G, et al. EANM practical guidance on uncertainty analysis for molecular radiotherapy absorbed dose calculations. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2018;45:2456–74.
Gustafsson J, Brolin G, Cox M, Ljungberg M, Johansson L, Gleisner KS. Uncertainty propagation for SPECT/CT-based renal dosimetry in (177)Lu peptide receptor radionuclide therapy. Phys Med Biol. 2015;60(21):8329–46.
Stabin MG, Sparks RB, Crowe E. OLINDA/EXM: the second-generation personal computer software for internal dose assessment in nuclear medicine. J Nucl Med. 2005;46(6):1023–7.
Dewaraja YK, Devasia T, Kaza RK, et al. Prediction of tumor control in 90Y Radioembolization by logit models with PET/CT-based dose metrics. J Nucl Med. 2020;61:104–11.
Chlebus G, Schenk A, Moltz JH, et al. Automatic liver tumor segmentation in CT with fully convolutional neural networks and object-based postprocessing. Sci Rep. 2018;8:15497. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-33860-7.
Hatt M, Lee JA, Schmidtlein CR, et al. Classification and evaluation strategies of auto-segmentation approaches for PET: report of AAPM task group No. 211. Med Phys. 2017;44(6):e1-42.
Mikell JK, Kaza RK, Roberson PL, et al. Impact of 90 Y PET gradient-based tumor segmentation on voxel-level dosimetry in liver radioembolization. EJNMMI Phys. 2018;5(1):1–7.
McErlean A, Panicek DM, Zabor EC, et al. Intra- and interobserver variability in CT measurement in oncology. Radiology. 2013;269(2):451–8.
Breen SL, Publicover J, De Silva S, et al. Intraobserver and interobserver variability in GTV delineation on FDG-PET-CT images of head and neck cancers. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2007;68(3):763–70.
Finnochiaro D, Gear JI, Fioroni F, et al. Uncertainty analysis of tumour absorbed dose calculations in molecular radiotherapy. EJNMMI Phys. 2020;7(63):1–16.
Meyers N, Jadoul A, Bernard C, et al. Inter-observer variability of 90 Y PET/CT dosimetry in hepatocellular carcinoma after glass microspheres transarterial radioembolization. EJNMMI Phys. 2020;7:1–12.
Weber M, Lam M, Chiesa C, et al. EANM procedure guideline for the treatment of liver cancer and liver metastases with intra-arterial radioactive compounds. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2022. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-021-05600-z.
Eisenhauer EA, Therasse P, Bogaerts J, et al. New response evaluation criteria in solid tumours: revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1). Eur J Cancer. 2009;45(2):228–47.
Eliasziw M, Young SL, Woodbury MG, Fryday-Field K. Statistical methodology for the concurrent assessment of interrater and intrarater reliability: using goniometric measurements as an example. Phys Ther. 1994;74(8):777–88.
Finocchiaro D, Berenato S, Grassi E, et al. Partial volume effect of SPECT images in PRRT with 177Lu labelled somatostatin analogues: a practical solution. Phys Med. 2019;57:153–9.
Ashton EA, Takahashi C, Berg MJ, et al. Accuracy and reproducibility of manual and semiautomated quantification of MS lesions by MRI. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2003;17:300–8.