Display options
Cite
Habte F, Budhiraja S, Keren S, et al. In situ study of the impact of inter- and intra-reader variability on region of interest (ROI) analysis in preclinical molecular imaging. Am J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2013;3(2):175-81
Habte, F., Budhiraja, S., Keren, S., Doyle, T. C., Levin, C. S., & Paik, D. S. (2013). In situ study of the impact of inter- and intra-reader variability on region of interest (ROI) analysis in preclinical molecular imaging. American journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging, 3(2), 175-81.
Habte, Frezghi, et al. "In situ study of the impact of inter- and intra-reader variability on region of interest (ROI) analysis in preclinical molecular imaging." American journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging vol. 3,2 (2013): 175-81.
Habte F, Budhiraja S, Keren S, Doyle TC, Levin CS, Paik DS. In situ study of the impact of inter- and intra-reader variability on region of interest (ROI) analysis in preclinical molecular imaging. Am J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2013;3(2):175-81. Epub 2013 Mar 08. PMID: 23526701; PMCID: PMC3601477.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

Am J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2013;3(2):175-81. Epub 2013 Mar 08.

In situ study of the impact of inter- and intra-reader variability on region of interest (ROI) analysis in preclinical molecular imaging.

American journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging

Frezghi Habte, Shradha Budhiraja, Shay Keren, Timothy C Doyle, Craig S Levin, David S Paik

Affiliations

  1. Molecular Imaging Program at Stanford (MIPS), Stanford University Stanford, CA, USA ; Department of Radiology, Stanford University Stanford, CA, USA.

PMID: 23526701 PMCID: PMC3601477

Abstract

We estimated reader-dependent variability of region of interest (ROI) analysis and evaluated its impact on preclinical quantitative molecular imaging. To estimate reader variability, we used five independent image datasets acquired each using microPET and multispectral fluorescence imaging (MSFI). We also selected ten experienced researchers who utilize molecular imaging in the same environment that they typically perform their own studies. Nine investigators blinded to the data type completed the ROI analysis by drawing ROIs manually that delineate the tumor regions to the best of their knowledge and repeated the measurements three times, non-consecutively. Extracted mean intensities of voxels within each ROI are used to compute the coefficient of variation (CV) and characterize the inter- and intra-reader variability. The impact of variability was assessed through random samples iterated from normal distributions for control and experimental groups on hypothesis testing and computing statistical power by varying subject size, measured difference between groups and CV. The results indicate that inter-reader variability was 22.5% for microPET and 72.2% for MSFI. Additionally, mean intra-reader variability was 10.1% for microPET and 26.4% for MSFI. Repeated statistical testing showed that a total variability of CV < 50% may be needed to detect differences < 50% between experimental and control groups when six subjects (n = 6) or more are used and statistical power is adequate (80%). Surprisingly high variability has been observed mainly due to differences in the ROI placement and geometry drawn between readers, which may adversely affect statistical power and erroneously lead to negative study outcomes.

Keywords: Molecular imaging; microPET; multispectral fluorescence imaging; preclinical; region of interest analysis; variability

References

  1. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2011 Jan 25;108(4):1603-8 - PubMed
  2. J Clin Oncol. 2009 Jan 20;27(3):439-45 - PubMed
  3. Lancet Oncol. 2007 Sep;8(9):797-805 - PubMed
  4. J Med Phys. 2008 Oct;33(4):136-40 - PubMed
  5. Science. 2003 Apr 4;300(5616):100-2 - PubMed
  6. Cancer Res. 2008 Jul 1;68(13):4990-7 - PubMed
  7. J Nucl Med. 1997 Sep;38(9):1401-6 - PubMed
  8. Lancet Oncol. 2008 Aug;9(8):766-76 - PubMed
  9. BMC Syst Biol. 2008 Aug 12;2:74 - PubMed
  10. Curr Pharm Biotechnol. 2010 Sep 1;11(6):620-7 - PubMed
  11. Ultrasound Med Biol. 2007 Jun;33(6):950-8 - PubMed
  12. J Nucl Med. 2006 Jun;47(6):999-1006 - PubMed
  13. Int Rev Neurobiol. 2006;73:191-218 - PubMed
  14. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2009 Jan;192(1):279-87 - PubMed
  15. Radiology. 2005 Jun;235(3):950-8 - PubMed
  16. Mol Imaging Biol. 2004 May-Jun;6(3):139-48 - PubMed
  17. Mol Imaging Biol. 2006 Jan-Feb;8(1):36-42 - PubMed
  18. Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2009 Oct;6(10):609-11 - PubMed
  19. IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 2006 Nov;25(11):1405-9 - PubMed
  20. J Clin Oncol. 2006 Oct 10;24(29):4692-8 - PubMed
  21. Quant Imaging Med Surg. 2011 Dec;1(1):1-3 - PubMed

Publication Types

Grant support