How Precise Are Preinterventional Measurements Using Centerline Analysis Applications? Objective Ground Truth Evaluation Reveals Software-Specific Centerline Characteristics
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online August, 2017
How Precise Are Preinterventional Measurements Using Centerline Analysis Applications? Objective Ground Truth Evaluation Reveals Software-Specific Centerline Characteristics
Purpose: To evaluate different centerline analysis applications using objective ground truth from realistic aortic aneurysm phantoms with precisely defined geometry and centerlines to overcome the lack of unknown true dimensions in previously published in vivo validation studies. Methods: Three aortic phantoms were created using computer-aided design (CAD) software and a 3-dimensional (3D) printer. Computed tomography angiograms (CTAs) of phantoms and 3 patients were analyzed with 3 clinically approved and 1 research software application. The 3D centerline coordinates, intraluminal diameters, and lengths were validated against CAD ground truth using a dedicated evaluation software platform. Results: The 3D centerline position mean error ranged from 0.7±0.8 to 2.9±2.5 mm between tested applications. All applications calculated centerlines significantly different from ground truth. Diameter mean errors varied from 0.5±1.2 to 1.1±1.0 mm among 3 applications, but exceeded 8.0±11.0 mm with one application due to an unsteady distortion of luminal dimensions along the centerline. All tested commercially available software tools systematically underestimated centerline total lengths by −4.6±0.9 mm to −10.4±4.3 mm (maximum error −14.6 mm). Applications with the highest 3D centerline accuracy yielded the most precise diameter and length measurements. Conclusion: One clinically approved application did not provide reproducible centerline-based analysis results, while another approved application showed length errors that might influence stent-graft choice and procedure success. The variety and specific characteristics of endovascular aneurysm repair planning software tools require scientific evaluation and user awareness.
CorriereMAIslamACravenTE. Influence of computed tomography angiography reconstruction software on anatomic measurements and endograft component selection for endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair. J Vasc Surg. 2014;59:1224.e3–1231.e3.
2.
MaciaIde BlasMLegarretaJH. Standard and fenestrated endograft sizing in EVAR planning: Description and validation of a semi-automated 3D software. Comput Med Imaging Graph. 2016;50:9–23.
3.
DiehmNBaumgartnerISilvestroA. Automated software supported versus manual aorto-iliac diameter measurements in CT angiography of patients with abdominal aortic aneurysms: assessment of inter- and intraobserver variation. Vasa. 2005;34:255–261.
4.
KauffmannCTangADugasA. Clinical validation of a software for quantitative follow-up of abdominal aortic aneurysm maximum diameter and growth by CT angiography. Eur J Radiol. 2011;77:502–508.
5.
Müller-EschnerMRengierFPartoviS. Accuracy and variability of semiautomatic centerline analysis versus manual aortic measurement techniques for TEVAR. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2013;45:241–247.
6.
RengierFWeberTFPartoviS. Reliability of semiautomatic centerline analysis versus manual aortic measurement techniques for TEVAR among non-experts. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2011;42:324–331.
7.
RengierFWeberTFGieselFL. Centerline analysis of aortic CT angiographic examinations: benefits and limitations. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2009;192:W255–W263.
GhatwaryTMPattersonBOKarthikesalingamA. A systematic review of protocols for the three-dimensional morphologic assessment of abdominal aortic aneurysms using computed tomographic angiography. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2013;36:14–24.
KaladjiALucasAKervioG. Sizing for endovascular aneurysm repair: clinical evaluation of a new automated three-dimensional software. Ann Vasc Surg. 2010;24:912–920.
12.
Martinez-MeraJATahocesPGCarreiraJM. Automatic characterization of thoracic aortic aneurysms from CT images. Comput Biol Med. 2015;57:74–83.
13.
WörzSvon Tengg-KobligkHHenningerV. 3-D quantification of the aortic arch morphology in 3-D CTA data for endovascular aortic repair. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng. 2010;57:2359–2368.
14.
MaurelBHertaultAGonzalezTM. Evaluation of visceral artery displacement by endograft delivery system insertion. J Endovasc Ther. 2014;21:339–347.
15.
GhatwaryTKarthikesalingamAPattersonB. St George’s Vascular Institute Protocol: an accurate and reproducible methodology to enable comprehensive characterization of infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysm morphology in clinical and research applications. J Endovasc Ther. 2012;19:400–414.
16.
ParkerMVO’DonnellSDChangAS. What imaging studies are necessary for abdominal aortic endograft sizing? A prospective blinded study using conventional computed tomography, aortography, and three-dimensional computed tomography. J Vasc Surg. 2005;41:199–205.
17.
WyssTRDickFEnglandA. Three-dimensional imaging core laboratory of the endovascular aneurysm repair trials: validation of methodology. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2009;38:724–731.
18.
BoussionNSoulezGDe GuiseJA. Geometrical accuracy and fusion of multimodal vascular images: a phantom study. Med Phys. 2004;31:1434–1443.
19.
CloutierGSoulezGQanadliSD. A multimodality vascular imaging phantom with fiducial markers visible in DSA, CTA, MRA, and ultrasound. Med Phys. 2004;31:1424–1433.
20.
IsokangasJMHietalaRPeralaJ. Accuracy of computer-aided measurements in endovascular stent-graft planning: an experimental study with two phantoms. Invest Radiol. 2003;38:164–170.
21.
Singh-RangerRMcArthurTCorteMD. The abdominal aortic aneurysm sac after endoluminal exclusion: a medium-term morphologic follow-up based on volumetric technology. J Vasc Surg. 2000;31:490–500.
22.
KatoKIshiguchiTMaruyamaK. Accuracy of plastic replica of aortic aneurysm using 3D-CT data for transluminal stent-grafting: experimental and clinical evaluation. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 2001;25:300–304.
23.
LalkaSGStockbergerSMJohnsonMS. Phantom for calibration of preoperative imaging modalities in endoluminal stent-graft repair of aortic aneurysms. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 1998;9:799–807.
24.
YeungKKvan der LaanMJWeverJJ. New post-imaging software provides fast and accurate volume data from CTA surveillance after endovascular aneurysm repair. J Endovasc Ther. 2003;10:887–893.
25.
AllardLSoulezGChayerB. Multimodality vascular imaging phantoms: a new material for the fabrication of realistic 3D vessel geometries. Med Phys. 2009;36:3758–3763.
26.
BiesdorfARohrKFengD. Segmentation and quantification of the aortic arch using joint 3D model-based segmentation and elastic image registration. Med Image Anal. 2012;16:1187–1201.
27.
DugasATherasseEKauffmannC. Reproducibility of abdominal aortic aneurysm diameter measurement and growth evaluation on axial and multiplanar computed tomography reformations. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2012;35:779–787.
ChaikofELFillingerMFMatsumuraJS. Identifying and grading factors that modify the outcome of endovascular aortic aneurysm repair. J Vasc Surg. 2002;35:1061–1066.
30.
WörzSHoegenPLiaoW. Framework for quantitative evaluation of 3D vessel segmentation approaches using vascular phantoms in conjunction with 3D landmark localization and registration. Proc SPIE 9784, Medical Imaging 2016: Image Processing, 978419 (March21, 2016); doi:10.1117/12.2216091.
31.
IshibashiHIshiguchiTOhtaT. Remodeling of proximal neck angulation after endovascular aneurysm repair. J Vasc Surg. 2012;56:1201–1205.
32.
LeTBMoonMHJeonYS. Evaluation of aneurysm neck angle change after endovascular aneurysm repair ENDOVASCULAR ANEURYSM REPAIRs. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2016;39:668–675.
33.
van PrehnJSchlosserFJMuhsBE. Oversizing of aortic stent grafts for abdominal aneurysm repair: a systematic review of the benefits and risks. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2009;38:42–53.
34.
MartufiGLindquist LiljeqvistMSakalihasanN. Local diameter, wall stress, and thrombus thickness influence the local growth of abdominal aortic aneurysms. J Endovasc Ther. 2016;23:957–966.
