Performance of an automated registration-based method for longitudinal lesion matching and comparison to inter-reader variability

Abstract

Abstract Objective. Patients with metastatic disease are followed throughout treatment with medical imaging, and accurately assessing changes of individual lesions is critical to properly inform clinical decisions. The goal of this work was to assess the performance of an automated lesion-matching algorithm in comparison to inter-reader variability (IRV) of matching lesions between scans of metastatic cancer patients. Approach. Forty pairs of longitudinal PET/CT and CT scans were collected and organized into four cohorts: lung cancers, head and neck cancers, lymphomas, and advanced cancers. Cases were also divided by cancer burden: low-burden (<10 lesions), intermediate-burden (10–29), and high-burden (30+). Two nuclear medicine physicians conducted independent reviews of each scan-pair and manually matched lesions. Matching differences between readers were assessed to quantify the IRV of lesion matching. The two readers met to form a consensus, which was considered a gold standard and compared against the output of an automated lesion-matching algorithm. IRV and performance of the automated method were quantified using precision, recall, F1-score, and the number of differences. Main results. The performance of the automated method did not differ significantly from IRV for any metric in any cohort (p > 0.05, Wilcoxon paired test). In high-burden cases, the F1-score (median [range]) was 0.89 [0.63, 1.00] between the automated method and reader consensus and 0.93 [0.72, 1.00] between readers. In low-burden cases, F1-scores were 1.00 [0.40, 1.00] and 1.00 [0.40, 1.00], for the automated method and IRV, respectively. Automated matching was significantly more efficient than either reader (p < 0.001). In high-burden cases, median matching time for the readers was 60 and 30 min, respectively, while automated matching took a median of 3.9 min Significance. The automated lesion-matching algorithm was successful in performing lesion matching, meeting the benchmark of IRV. Automated lesion matching can significantly expedite and improve the consistency of longitudinal lesion-matching.