3D Slicer software demonstrated substantial inter-reader agreement for minimal ablative margin evaluation (K Cohen 0.65-0.74), but its workflow and time demands limit clinical use.
Observational (n=20)
Does 3D Slicer software provide reliable minimal ablative margin evaluation compared to visual assessment in patients with ablated liver tumors?
While 3D Slicer provides strong inter-reader agreement for evaluating minimal ablative margins in liver tumors, its high time demands and workflow complexity limit its routine clinical utility.
Effect estimate: K Cohen 0.65-0.74
PURPOSE: The study aims to evaluate the potential of the free open-source general purpose image processing software 3D Slicer for minimal ablative margin (MAM) evaluation. MATERIAL AND METHODS: 3D Slicer was retrospectively applied to assess MAM of ablated liver tumors with pre and post intraprocedural CT. Three operators with different years of experience were involved: two of them assessed the MAMs using 3D Slicers software with the segmentation and registration tools and Model-to-Model extension, and categorized MAM in three categories (≤ 0 mm, > 0- 0- < 5 mm, ≥ 5 mm), with K Cohen between 0.65 and 0.74. Instead, slight or no agreement between software's and visual assessment results was found (K Cohen between - 0.30 and 0.11). Mean time to calculate MAM was respectively of 25' and 16″ for operator 2 and 49' and 26″ for operator 3. CONCLUSION: Strong inter-reader agreement using 3D-Slicer is encouraging, but its workflow and time demands limit clinical use, highlighting the need for task-specific software.
Menchini et al. (Fri,) conducted a observational in Ablated liver tumors (n=20). 3D Slicer software vs. Visual assessment was evaluated on Concordance among operators (K Cohen) and image processing time for minimal ablative margin evaluation (K Cohen 0.65-0.74). 3D Slicer software demonstrated substantial inter-reader agreement for minimal ablative margin evaluation (K Cohen 0.65-0.74), but its workflow and time demands limit clinical use.