• Diagn Interv Radiol · Jul 2013

    Intra- and interoperator variability of lobar pulmonary volumes and emphysema scores in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and emphysema: comparison of manual and semi-automated segmentation techniques.

    • Francesco Molinari, Tommaso Pirronti, Nicola Sverzellati, Stefano Diciotti, Michele Amato, Guglielmo Paolantonio, Luigia Gentile, George K Parapatt, Francesco D'Argento, and Jan-Martin Kuhnigk.
    • Department of Radiology, CHRU. Lille, France. francescomolinari.dr@gmail.com
    • Diagn Interv Radiol. 2013 Jul 1; 19 (4): 279-85.

    PurposeWe aimed to compare the intra- and interoperator variability of lobar volumetry and emphysema scores obtained by semi-automated and manual segmentation techniques in lung emphysema patients.Materials And MethodsIn two sessions held three months apart, two operators performed lobar volumetry of unenhanced chest computed tomography examinations of 47 consecutive patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and lung emphysema. Both operators used the manual and semi-automated segmentation techniques. The intra- and interoperator variability of the volumes and emphysema scores obtained by semi-automated segmentation was compared with the variability obtained by manual segmentation of the five pulmonary lobes.ResultsThe intra- and interoperator variability of the lobar volumes decreased when using semi-automated lobe segmentation (coefficients of repeatability for the first operator: right upper lobe, 147 vs. 96.3; right middle lobe, 137.7 vs. 73.4; right lower lobe, 89.2 vs. 42.4; left upper lobe, 262.2 vs. 54.8; and left lower lobe, 260.5 vs. 56.5; coefficients of repeatability for the second operator: right upper lobe, 61.4 vs. 48.1; right middle lobe, 56 vs. 46.4; right lower lobe, 26.9 vs. 16.7; left upper lobe, 61.4 vs. 27; and left lower lobe, 63.6 vs. 27.5; coefficients of reproducibility in the interoperator analysis: right upper lobe, 191.3 vs. 102.9; right middle lobe, 219.8 vs. 126.5; right lower lobe, 122.6 vs. 90.1; left upper lobe, 166.9 vs. 68.7; and left lower lobe, 168.7 vs. 71.6). The coefficients of repeatability and reproducibility of emphysema scores also decreased when using semi-automated segmentation and had ranges that varied depending on the target lobe and selected threshold of emphysema.ConclusionSemi-automated segmentation reduces the intra- and interoperator variability of lobar volumetry and provides a more objective tool than manual technique for quantifying lung volumes and severity of emphysema.

      Pubmed     Free full text   Copy Citation     Plaintext  

      Add institutional full text...

    Notes

     
    Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?
    300 characters remaining
    help        
    You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
    • Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as *italics*, _underline_ or **bold**.
    • Superscript can be denoted by <sup>text</sup> and subscript <sub>text</sub>.
    • Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines 1. 2. 3., hyphens - or asterisks *.
    • Links can be included with: [my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
    • Images can be included with: ![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
    • For footnotes use [^1](This is a footnote.) inline.
    • Or use an inline reference [^1] to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document [^1]: This is a long footnote..

    hide…