Table 1. This table presents a comparison of a) the time it took for physicians to segment GBMs manually vs. using 3D Slicer, b) the agreement between the two segmentations. The MT column shows the time (in minutes) it took a physician to segment each of ten GBMs on slice-by-slice basis. The SlicerT column shows the time (in minutes) it took a physician to segment it using 3D Slicer. The Slices column shows the number of slices that the tumor spans in each case, as a rough approximation of the complexity of the segmentation task. Note that 9 out of 10 cases, Slicer < MT, and on an average, the time it took to segment with 3D Slicer was 61% of the time it took to segment manually on a slice-by-slice basis. The columns DSC and HD show the agreement between the two segmentations using a Dice Similarity Coefficient and Hausdorff Distance, respectively.
| Case No. | MT (min) | SlicerT (min) | Slices | SlicerT/MT | DSC | HD (mm) | Manual Volume (mm3) | Slicer Vol (mm3) | Slicer/Manual Vol |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 9 | 4 | 36 | 0.44 | 0.85 | 2.80 | 33522 | 44694 | 1.33 |
| 2 | 19 | 7.5 | 51 | 0.39 | 0.91 | 3.68 | 28373 | 32383 | 1.14 |
| 3 | 6 | 4.5 | 42 | 0.75 | 0.92 | 1.71 | 42056 | 47752 | 1.14 |
| 4 | 16 | 6.5 | 60 | 0.41 | 0.91 | 3.00 | 69448 | 78776 | 1.13 |
| 5 | 3 | 2.5 | 10 | 0.83 | 0.81 | 2.00 | 1480 | 2016 | 1.36 |
| 6 | 14 | 6.25 | 43 | 0.45 | 0.94 | 2.00 | 39097 | 38905 | 1.00 |
| 7 | 13 | 8.5 | 36 | 0.65 | 0.87 | 2.23 | 22468 | 25331 | 1.13 |
| 8 | 7 | 9.25 | 42 | 1.32 | 0.92 | 2.12 | 27368 | 30648 | 1.12 |
| 9 | 5 | 3 | 11 | 0.60 | 0.79 | 2.39 | 2703 | 3908 | 1.45 |
| 10 | 11 | 2.5 | 16 | 0.23 | 0.92 | 0.31 | 10318 | 11720 | 1.14 |
| Averages | 10.30 | 5.45 | 34.70 | 0.61 | 0.88 | 2.32 | 27683 | 31613 | 1.19 |
| Time | Agreement | ||||||||