Analysis of interobserver and intraobserver variability in CT tumor measurements

American Journal of Roentgenology

Volumn 167, Issue 4, 1996, Pages 851-854

  Hopper, Kenneth D ^a   Kasales, Claudia J ^a   Van Slyke, Mark A ^a   Schwartz, Todd A ^a   TenHave, Thomas R ^a   Jozefiak, Judith A ^a  

^a PENN STATE COLLEGE OF MEDICINE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CLINICAL ARTICLE; COMPUTER ASSISTED TOMOGRAPHY; HUMAN; LUNG TUMOR; METASTASIS; PRIORITY JOURNAL; THORAX RADIOGRAPHY; TUMOR VOLUME;

EID: 0029769512     PISSN: 0361803X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2214/ajr.167.4.8819370     Document Type: Article

References (6)

1. Gurland J, Johnson RO. Case for using only maximum diameter in measuring tumors. Cancer Chemother Rep 1966;50:119-124
2. Gurland J, Johnson RO. How reliable are tumor measurements? JAMA 1965;194:125-130
3. Fornage BD. Measuring masses on cross-sectional images. Radiology 1993;187:289
4. Moertel CG, Hanley JA. The effect of measuring error on the results of therapeutic trials in advanced cancer. Cancer 1976;38:388-394
5. Goei R, Lamers RJ, Engleshove HA, Oei KT. Computed tomographic staging of esophageal carcinoma: a study on interobserver variation and correlation with pathological findings. Eur Radiol 1992;15:40-44
6. Hopper KD, Kasales CJ, Belman NM, et al. The impact of 2-D versus 3-D quantitation of tumor bulk determination on current methods of assessing response to treatment. J Comput Assist Tomogr (in press)