Freehand Liver Volumetry by Using an Electromagnetic Pen Tablet: Accuracy, Precision, and Rapidity

The purpose of this study is to assess the accuracy, precision, and rapidity of liver volumes calculated by using a freehand electromagnetic pen tablet contourtracing method as compared with the volumes calculated by using the standard optical mouse contourtracing method. The imaging data used as input for accuracy and precision testing were computed by software developed in our institution. This computer software can generate models of solid organs and allows both standard mouse-based and electromagnetic pen-driven segmentation (number of data sets, n = 70). The images used as input for rapidity testing was partly computed by modeling software (n = 70) and partly selected from contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CT) examinations (n = 12). Mean volumes and time required to perform the segmentation, along with standard deviation and range values with both techniques, were calculated. Student's t test was used to assess significance regarding mean volumes and time calculated by using both segmentation techniques on phantom and CT data sets. P value was also calculated. The mean volume difference was significantly lower with the use of the freehand electromagnetic pen as compared with the optical mouse (0.2% vs. 1.8%; P < .001). The mean segmentation time per patient was significantly shorter with the use of the freehand electromagnetic pen contourtracing method (354.5 vs. 499.1 s on phantoms; 457.4 vs. 610.0 s on CT images; P < .001). Freehand electromagnetic pen-based volumetric technique represents a technologic advancement over manual mouse-based contourtracing because of the superior statistical accuracy and sensibly shorter time required. Further studies focused on intra- and interobserver variability of the technique need to be performed before its introduction in clinical application

Comparison of MRI- and CT-based semiautomated liver segmentation: a validation study

Purpose To compare the repeatability, agreement, and efficiency of MRI- and CT-based semiautomated liver segmentation for the assessment of total and subsegmental liver volume. Methods This retrospective study was conducted in 31 subjects who underwent contemporaneous liver MRI and CT. Total and subsegmental liver volumes were segmented from contrast-enhanced 3D gradient-recalled echo MRI sequences and CT images. Semiautomated segmentation was based on variational interpolation and Laplacian mesh optimization. All segmentations were repeated after 2 weeks. Manual segmentation of CT images using an active contour tool was used as the reference standard. Repeatability and agreement of the methods were evaluated with intra-class correlation coefficients (ICC) and Bland–Altman analysis. Total interaction time was recorded. Results Intra-reader ICC were ≥0.987 for MRI and ≥0.995 for CT. Intra-reader repeatability was 30 ± 217 ml (bias ± 1.96 SD) (95% limits of agreement: −187 to 247 ml) for MRI and −10 ± 143 ml (−153 to 133 ml) for CT. Inter-method ICC between semiautomated and manual volumetry were ≥0.995 for MRI and ≥0.986 for CT. Inter-method segmental ICC varied between 0.584 and 0.865 for MRI and between 0.596 and 0.890 for CT. Inter-method agreement was –14 ± 136 ml (−150 to 122 ml) for MRI and 50 ± 226 ml (−176 to 276 ml) for CT. Inter-method segmental agreement ranged from 10 ± 47 ml (−37 to 57 ml) to 2 ± 214 ml (−212 to 216 ml) for MRI and 9 ± 45 ml (−36 to 54 ml) to −46 ± 183 ml (−229 to 137 ml) for CT. Interaction time (mean ± SD) was significantly shorter for MRI-based semiautomated segmentation (7.2 ± 0.1 min, p < 0.001) and for CT-based semiautomated segmentation (6.5 ± 0.2 min, p < 0.001) than for CT-based manual segmentation (14.5 ± 0.4 min). Conclusion MRI-based semiautomated segmentation provides similar repeatability and agreement to CT-based segmentation for total liver volume