Table 1.
Demographics and clinical characteristics of ADPKD patients included in the experimental and validation datasets, from past and on-going clinical trials.
Fig 1.
Representative images of polycystic kidney volume segmentations.
Segmentation was performed on MRI (panels A-D) and CT image slices (panels E-H) by the expert operator using ImageJ polyline (A and E), Osirix free-hand (B and F), Livewire tool (C and G) and Stereology (D and H).
Fig 2.
Three-dimensional representation of ADPKD kidneys in comparison with normal kidneys.
Scales represent dimension in cm. The kidney shape, size, and volume highly differ between the normal control (panel A: total kidney volume (TKV) = 591 ml) and the patients (panel B: TKV = 1327 ml; panel C: TKV = 3026 ml; panel D: TKV = 5836 ml). Kidneys were reconstructed using VMTK software based on binary masks obtained from ImageJ polyline manual tracings on representative CT images.
Table 2.
Single kidney volume (SKV) assessed by different methods and time required by expert and beginner operator on MR and CT images from ADPKD patients in the experimental dataset.
Table 3.
Inter and intra-rater reproducibility of single kidney volume (SKV) measured by expert and beginner operators using different quantification methods on MR and CT images from ADPKD patients in the experimental dataset.
Table 4.
Absolute and percentage difference and root mean squared error (RMSE) between methods used to compute single kidney volume (SKV) by the expert operator on MR and CT images from ADPKD patients in the experimental dataset.
Fig 3.
Agreement between kidney volume computation methods on MR in the experimental dataset.
Panels A-E: Bland-Altman plots showing agreement between different kidney volume computation methods (A: Osirix free-hand; B: Livewire tool; C: Stereology; D: Mid-slice method; E: Ellipsoid method) versus ImageJ polyline (reference method). Percent differences in single kidney volume (SKV) are plotted against average SKV values of the two methods. Solid lines denote mean difference, while dashed lines denote ± standard deviations. Panel F: plot of the residual of the linear regression of kidney length against SKV (assessed by reference ImageJ polyline method). Black dots represent right kidneys while white dots represent left kidneys.
Fig 4.
Agreement between kidney volume computation methods on CT in the experimental dataset.
Panels A-E: Bland-Altman plots showing agreement different kidney volume computation methods (A: Osirix free-hand; B: Livewire tool; C: Stereology; D: Mid-slice method; E: Ellipsoid method) versus ImageJ polyline (reference method). Percent differences in single kidney volume (SKV) are plotted against average SKV values of the two methods. Solid lines denote mean difference, while dashed lines denote ± standard deviations. Panel F: plot of the residual of the linear regression of kidney length against SKV (assessed by reference ImageJ polyline method). Black dots represent right kidneys while white dots represent left kidneys.
Table 5.
Total kidney volume changes compared with baseline at 1 year of treatment with placebo or Octreotide-LAR.
Total kidney volume was assessed by different kidney volume computation methods on MR images taken from the ALADIN clinical study [12].