J. Imaging, Vol. 8, Pages 329: 3D Ultrasound versus Computed Tomography for Tumor Volume Measurement Compared to Gross Pathology—A Pilot Study on an Animal Model

Figure 1. Three-dimensional ultrasound imaging of the specimen. A holder is used to keep the probe at the desired position. The height of the probe front-face in relation to the specimen surface is adjusted using the yellow elongators.

Jimaging 08 00329 g001

Figure 2. Slicing of the specimen using a specific device that allows for thin and parallel cutting.

Jimaging 08 00329 g002

Figure 3. An example of the correlation between slices for gross pathology assessment and corresponding imaging. (a) Specimen slice, (b) corresponding slice on 3D ultrasound image, (c) corresponding slice on CT image, (d) corresponding slice on segmentation, and (e) 3D segmentation of the animal model.

Figure 3. An example of the correlation between slices for gross pathology assessment and corresponding imaging. (a) Specimen slice, (b) corresponding slice on 3D ultrasound image, (c) corresponding slice on CT image, (d) corresponding slice on segmentation, and (e) 3D segmentation of the animal model.

Jimaging 08 00329 g003aJimaging 08 00329 g003b

Figure 4. Area measurement at parallel equally distanced planes corresponding to the pathological slices. The dashed blue line is the result of the pathological assessment, and the shaded gray area is the standard deviation of the three measurements. (a) 3D ultrasound results compared to the pathological assessment. The solid red line is the mean area at each slice obtained by 3D ultrasound. (b) CT results compared to the pathological assessment. The solid purple line is the mean area at each slice measured by CT.

Jimaging 08 00329 g004

Figure 5. Paired t-test for statistical evaluation of the CT and 3D ultrasound compared to gross pathology. ns stands for non-significant, and * stands for significant.

Jimaging 08 00329 g005

Table 1. Mean area (A_mean ± S) in mm2 measured on each slice by CT, 3D ultrasound, and gross pathology. The mean results are calculated by averaging over three different delineation sessions.

Table 1. Mean area (A_mean ± S) in mm2 measured on each slice by CT, 3D ultrasound, and gross pathology. The mean results are calculated by averaging over three different delineation sessions.

Slice NumberCT3D UltrasoundGross Pathology122.0 ± 6.319.6 ± 8.829.3239.1 ± 5.138.7 ± 11.451.5353.8 ± 2.856.9 ± 5.358.8451.6 ± 10.264.4 ± 5.667.1565.4 ± 2.362.2 ± 6.063.6669.1 ± 7.065.9 ± 1.766.9767.4 ± 14.264.5 ± 2.464.9854.6 ± 17.764.6 ± 4.658.1945.6 ± 3.049.6 ± 13.455.7

留言 (0)

沒有登入
gif