REliability of consensus-based segMentatIoN in raDiomic feature reproducibility (REMIND): A word of caution

Objective: To evaluate the reliability of consensus-based segmentation in terms of reproducibility of radiomic features.Methods: In this retrospective study, three tumor data sets were investigated: breast cancer (n = 30), renal cell carcinoma (n = 30), and pituitary macroadenoma (n = 30). MRI was utilized for breast and pituitary data sets, while CT was used for renal data set. 12 readers participated in the segmentation process. Consensus segmen-tation was created by making corrections on a previous region or volume of interest. Four experiments were designed to evaluate the reproducibility of radiomic features. Reliability was assessed with intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) with two cut-off values: 0.75 and 0.9.Results: Considering the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval and the ICC threshold of 0.90, at least 61% of the radiomic features were not reproducible in the inter-consensus analysis. In the susceptibility experiment, at least half (54%) became non-reproducible when the first reader is replaced with a different reader. In the intra-consensus analysis, at least about one-third (32%) were non-reproducible when the same second reader segmented the image over the same first reader two weeks later. Compared to inter-reader analysis based on independent single readers, the inter-consensus analysis did not statistically significantly improve the rates of reproducible features in all data sets and analyses.Conclusions: Despite the positive connotation of the word "consensus", it is essential to REMIND that consensus-based segmentation has significant reproducibility issues. Therefore, the usage of consensus-based segmentation alone should be avoided unless a reliability analysis is performed, even if it is not practical in clinical settings.