Metabolic tumour volume in Hodgkin lymphoma—A comparison between manual and AI‐based analysis
May Sadik, Sally F. Barrington, Elin Trägårdh, Babak Saboury, Anne Lerberg Nielsen, Annika Loft Jakobsen, José Luis Loaiza Góngora, Jesus Lopez Urdaneta, Rajender Kumar, Lars Edenbrandt
Abstract
Abstract Aim To compare total metabolic tumour volume (tMTV), calculated using two artificial intelligence (AI)‐based tools, with manual segmentation by specialists as the reference. Methods Forty‐eight consecutive Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) patients staged with [18F] fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography were included. The median age was 35 years (range: 7–75), 46% female. The tMTV was automatically measured using the AI‐based tools positron emission tomography assisted reporting system (PARS) (from Siemens) and RECOMIA ( recomia.org ) without any manual adjustments. A group of eight nuclear medicine specialists manually segmented lesions for tMTV calculations; each patient was independently segmented by two specialists. Results The median of the manual tMTV was 146 cm 3 (interquartile range [IQR]: 79–568 cm 3 ) and the median difference between two tMTV values segmented by different specialists for the same patient was 26 cm 3 (IQR: 10–86 cm 3 ). In 22 of the 48 patients, the manual tMTV value was closer to the RECOMIA tMTV value than to the manual tMTV value segmented by the second specialist. In 11 of the remaining 26 patients, the difference between the RECOMIA tMTV and the manual tMTV was small (<26 cm 3 , which was the median difference between two manual tMTV values from the same patient). The corresponding numbers for PARS were 18 and 10 patients, respectively. Conclusion The results of this study indicate that RECOMIA and Siemens PARS AI tools could be used without any major manual adjustments in 69% (33/48) and 58% (28/48) of HL patients, respectively. This demonstrates the feasibility of using AI tools to support physicians measuring tMTV for assessment of prognosis in clinical practice.