Semi-automated quantification of hepatic lesions in a phantom

Investigative Radiology

Volumn 44, Issue 2, 2009, Pages 82-88

  Keil, Sebastian ^a   Plumhans, Cedric ^a   Behrendt, Florian F ^a   Stanzel, Sven ^a   Suehling, Michael ^b   Mühlenbruch, Georg ^a   Mahnken, Andreas H ^a   Günther, Rolf W ^a   Das, Marco ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL RWTH AACHEN   (Germany)

^b SIEMENS AG   (Germany)

Author keywords

Hepatic lesions; Phantom; Semi automated measurements

Indexed keywords

ACCURACY; ARTICLE; AUTOMATION; COMPUTER PROGRAM; CONE BEAM COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY; LIVER INJURY; MULTIDETECTOR COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY; PHANTOM; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS; ALGORITHM; ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE; AUTOMATED PATTERN RECOGNITION; COMPUTER ASSISTED DIAGNOSIS; COMPUTER ASSISTED TOMOGRAPHY; HUMAN; IMAGE QUALITY; INSTRUMENTATION; LIVER TUMOR; METHODOLOGY; RADIOGRAPHY; REPRODUCIBILITY; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY;

ALGORITHMS; ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE; HUMANS; LIVER NEOPLASMS; PATTERN RECOGNITION, AUTOMATED; PHANTOMS, IMAGING; RADIOGRAPHIC IMAGE ENHANCEMENT; RADIOGRAPHIC IMAGE INTERPRETATION, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; TOMOGRAPHY, X-RAY COMPUTED;

EID: 66149132180     PISSN: 00209996     EISSN: 15360210     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/RLI.0b013e3181911ffa     Document Type: Article

References (24)

1. Koshariya M, Jagad RB, Kawamoto J, et al. An update and our experience with metastatic liver disease. Hepatogastroenterology. 2007;54:2232-2239.
2. Therasse P, Arbuck SG, Eisenhauer EA, et al. New guidelines to evaluate the response to treatment in solid tumors. European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer, National Cancer Institute of the United States, National Cancer Institute of Canada. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2000;92:205-216.
3. James K, Eisenhauer E, Christian M, et al. Measuring response in solid tumors: unidimensional versus bidimensional measurement. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1999;91:523-528.
4. Marten K, Auer F, Schmidt S, et al. Inadequacy of manual measurements compared to automated CT volumetry in assessment of treatment response of pulmonary metastases using RECIST criteria. Eur Radiol. 2006;16:781-790.
5. Revel MP, Bissery A, Bienvenu M, et al. Are two-dimensional CT measurements of small noncalcified pulmonary nodules reliable? Radiology. 2004; 231:453-458.
6. von Falck C, Hartung A, Berndzen F, et al. Optimization of low-contrast detectability in thin-collimated modern multidetector CT using an interactive sliding-thin-slab averaging algorithm. Invest Radiol. 2008;43:229-235.
7. Yankelevitz DF, Gupta R, Zhao B, et al. Small pulmonary nodules: evaluation with repeat CT-preliminary experience. Radiology. 1999;212:561-566.
8. Das M, Mühlenbruch G, Katoh M, et al. Automated volumetry of solid pulmonary nodules in a phantom: accuracy across different CT scanner technologies. Invest Radiol. 2007;42:297-302.
9. Wormanns D, Kohl G, Klotz E, et al. Volumetric measurements of pulmonary nodules at multi-row detector CT: in vivo reproducibility. Eur Radiol. 2004;14:86-92.
10. Bolte H, Riedel C, Jahnke T, et al. Reproducibility of computer-aided volumetry of artificial small pulmonary nodules in ex vivo porcine lungs. Invest Radiol. 2006;41:28-35.
11. Kuhnigk JM, Dicken V, Bornemann L, et al. Morphological segmentation and partial volume analysis for volumetry of solid pulmonary lesions in thoracic CT scans. IEEE Trans Med. Imaging. 2006;25:417-434.
12. Bornemann L, Dicken V, Kuhnigk JM, et al. OncoTREAT: a software assistant for cancer therapy monitoring. Int J Comput Ass Radiol Surg. 2007;1:231-42.
13. Goo JM, Tongdee T, Tongdee R, et al. Volumetric measurement of synthetic lung nodules with multi-detector row CT: effect of various image reconstruction parameters and segmentation thresholds on measurement accuracy. Radiology. 2005;235:850-856.
14. Bland M, Altman DG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet. 1986;1:307-310.
15. Lin LIK. A concordance correlation coefficient to evaluate reproducibility. Biometrics. 1989;45:255-268.
16. Hoekstra OS, Lingen A, Ossenkoppele GJ, et al. Early response monitoring in malignant lymphoma using fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose single-photon emission tomography. Eur J Nucl Med. 1993;20:1214-1217.
17. Krix M, Plathow C, Essig M, et al. Monitoring of liver metastases after stereotactic radiotherapy using low-MI contrast-enhanced ultrasound-initial results. Eur Radiol. 2005;15:677-684.
18. Kiessling F, Boese J, Corvinus C, et al. Perfusion CT in patients with advanced bronchial carcinomas: a novel chance for characterization and treatment monitoring? Eur Radiol. 2004;14:1226-1233.
19. Jaffe CC. Measures of response: RECIST, WHO, and new alternatives. J Clin Oncol. 2006;24:3245-3251.
20. Harris KM, Adams H, Lloyd DC, et al. The effect on apparent size of simulated pulmonary nodules of using three standard CT window settings. Clin Radiol. 1993;47:241-244.
21. Erasmus JJ, Gladish GW, Broemeling L, et al. Interobserver and intraobserver variability in measurement of nonsmall-cell carcinoma lung lesions: implications for assessment of tumor response. J Clin Oncol. 2003;21:2574-2582.
22. Prasad SR, Jhaveri KS, Saini S, et al. CT tumor measurement for therapeutic response assessment: comparison of unidimensional, bidimensional, and volumetric techniques initial observations. Radiology. 2002;225:416-419.
23. Heussel CP, Meier S, Wittelsberger S, et al. Follow-up CT measurement of liver malignoma according to RECIST and WHO vs. volumetry. Fortschr Röntgenstr. 2007;179:958-964 [in German].
24. Hopper KD, Kasales CJ, Van Slyke MA, et al. Analysis of interobserver and intraobserver variability in CT tumor measurements. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1996;167:851-854.