Computer-aided liver volumetry: performance of a fully-automated, prototype post-processing solution for whole-organ and lobar segmentation based on MDCT imaging.


Journal Article

PURPOSE: To evaluate the performance of a prototype, fully-automated post-processing solution for whole-liver and lobar segmentation based on MDCT datasets. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A polymer liver phantom was used to assess accuracy of post-processing applications comparing phantom volumes determined via Archimedes' principle with MDCT segmented datasets. For the IRB-approved, HIPAA-compliant study, 25 patients were enrolled. Volumetry performance compared the manual approach with the automated prototype, assessing intraobserver variability, and interclass correlation for whole-organ and lobar segmentation using ANOVA comparison. Fidelity of segmentation was evaluated qualitatively. RESULTS: Phantom volume was 1581.0 ± 44.7 mL, manually segmented datasets estimated 1628.0 ± 47.8 mL, representing a mean overestimation of 3.0%, automatically segmented datasets estimated 1601.9 ± 0 mL, representing a mean overestimation of 1.3%. Whole-liver and segmental volumetry demonstrated no significant intraobserver variability for neither manual nor automated measurements. For whole-liver volumetry, automated measurement repetitions resulted in identical values; reproducible whole-organ volumetry was also achieved with manual segmentation, p(ANOVA) 0.98. For lobar volumetry, automated segmentation improved reproducibility over manual approach, without significant measurement differences for either methodology, p(ANOVA) 0.95-0.99. Whole-organ and lobar segmentation results from manual and automated segmentation showed no significant differences, p(ANOVA) 0.96-1.00. Assessment of segmentation fidelity found that segments I-IV/VI showed greater segmentation inaccuracies compared to the remaining right hepatic lobe segments. CONCLUSION: Automated whole-liver segmentation showed non-inferiority of fully-automated whole-liver segmentation compared to manual approaches with improved reproducibility and post-processing duration; automated dual-seed lobar segmentation showed slight tendencies for underestimating the right hepatic lobe volume and greater variability in edge detection for the left hepatic lobe compared to manual segmentation.

Full Text

Duke Authors

Cited Authors

  • Fananapazir, G; Bashir, MR; Marin, D; Boll, DT

Published Date

  • June 2015

Published In

Volume / Issue

  • 40 / 5

Start / End Page

  • 1203 - 1212

PubMed ID

  • 25326261

Pubmed Central ID

  • 25326261

Electronic International Standard Serial Number (EISSN)

  • 1432-0509

Digital Object Identifier (DOI)

  • 10.1007/s00261-014-0276-9


  • eng

Conference Location

  • United States