CT screening and follow-up of lung nodules: Effects of tube current-time setting and nodule size and density on detectability and of tube current-time setting on apparent size

American Journal of Roentgenology

Volumn 197, Issue 3, 2011, Pages 623-630

  Christe, Andreas ^a,b   Torrente, Jaled Charimo ^b   Lin, Margaret ^a   Yen, Andrew ^a   Hallett, Rich ^a   Roychoudhury, Kingshuk ^c   Schmitzberger, Florian ^a   Vock, Peter ^b   Roos, Justus ^a  

^a STANFORD UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF BERN   (Switzerland)

^c UNIVERSITY COLLEGE CORK   (Ireland)

Author keywords

CT; Density; Dose; Lung nodules; Sensitivity; Volume measurement error

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; CLINICAL ARTICLE; COMPUTER ASSISTED TOMOGRAPHY; CONTROLLED STUDY; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; DIAGNOSTIC TEST ACCURACY STUDY; FEMALE; FOLLOW UP; HUMAN; LOGISTIC REGRESSION ANALYSIS; LUNG NODULE; MALE; MEASUREMENT ERROR; MEDICAL PARAMETERS; NODULE DENSITY; NODULE SIZE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RADIATION DOSE; RADIOLOGICAL PARAMETERS; RISK ASSESSMENT; SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS; TIME SETTING; TUBE CURRENT; VOLUMETRY;

ADULT; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; FEASIBILITY STUDIES; FEMALE; FOLLOW-UP STUDIES; HUMANS; LOGISTIC MODELS; LUNG NEOPLASMS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PROSPECTIVE STUDIES; RADIATION DOSAGE; RADIOGRAPHIC IMAGE INTERPRETATION, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; SOFTWARE; SOLITARY PULMONARY NODULE; TIME FACTORS; TOMOGRAPHY, X-RAY COMPUTED;

EID: 80052237165     PISSN: 0361803X     EISSN: 15463141     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2214/AJR.10.5288     Document Type: Article

References (30)

1. Henschke CI, Naidich DP, Yankelevitz DF, et al. Early Lung Cancer Action Project: initial findings on repeat screenings. Cancer 2001; 92:153-159 (Pubitemid 32623052)
2. Henschke CI, Yankelevitz DF, Mirtcheva R, et al. CT screening for lung cancer: frequency and significance of part-solid and nonsolid nodules. AJR 2002; 178:1053-1057 (Pubitemid 34411393)
3. Lee IJ, Gamsu G, Czum J, Wu N, Johnson R, Chakrapani S. Lung nodule detection on chest CT: evaluation of a computer-aided detection (CAD) system. Korean J Radiol 2005; 6:89-93 (Pubitemid 40896871)
4. Ko JP, Rusinek H, Naidich DP, et al. Wavelet compression of low-dose chest CT data: effect on lung nodule detection. Radiology 2003; 228:70-75 (Pubitemid 36736071)
5. Hetmaniak Y, Bard JJ, Albuisson E, et al. Pulmonary nodules: dosimetric and clinical studies at low dose multidetector CT [in French]. J Radiol 2003; 84:399-404 (Pubitemid 36753088)
6. Weng MJ, Wu MT, Pan HB, Kan YY, Yang CF. The feasibility of low-dose CT for pulmonary metastasis in patients with primary gynecologic malignancy. Clin Imaging 2004; 28:408-414
7. Gergely I, Neumann C, Reiger F, Dorffner R. Lung nodule detection with ultra-low-dose CT in routine follow-up of cancer patients [in German]. Rofo 2005; 177:1077-1083 (Pubitemid 41159020)
8. Das M, Mühlenbruch G, Heinen S, et al. Performance evaluation of a computer-aided detection algorithm for solid pulmonary nodules in lowdose and standard-dose MDCT chest examinations and its influence on radiologists. Br J Radiol 2008; 81:841-847
9. Li F, Arimura H, Suzuki K, et al. Computer-aided detection of peripheral lung cancers missed at CT: ROC analyses without and with localization. Radiology 2005; 237:684-690 (Pubitemid 41507913)
10. Armato SG, Li F, Giger ML, MacMahon H, Sone S, Doi K. Lung cancer: performance of automated lung nodule detection applied to cancers missed in a CT screening program. Radiology 2002; 225:685-692 (Pubitemid 35387102)
11. Lee JW, Goo JM, Lee HJ, Kim JH, Kim S, Kim YT. The potential contribution of a computer-aided detection system for lung nodule detection in multidetector row computed tomography. Invest Radiol 2004; 39:649-655 (Pubitemid 39425956)
12. Lillington GA, Caskey CI. Evaluation and management of solitary and multiple pulmonary nodules. Clin Chest Med 1993; 14:111-119 (Pubitemid 23098992)
13. Usuda K, Saito Y, Sagawa M, et al. Tumor doubling time and prognostic assessment of patients with primary lung cancer. Cancer 1994; 74:2239-2244 (Pubitemid 24322277)
14. Bogot NR, Kazerooni EA, Kelly AM, Quint LE, Desjardins B, Nan B. Interobserver and intraobserver variability in the assessment of pulmonary nodule size on CT using film and computer display methods. Acad Radiol 2005; 12:948-956 (Pubitemid 41116411)
15. Erasmus JJ, Gladish GW, Broemeling L, et al. Interobserver and intraobserver variability in measurement of non-small-cell carcinoma lung lesions: implications for assessment of tumor response. J Clin Oncol 2003; 21:2574-2582 (Pubitemid 46606340)
16. Meyer CR, Johnson TD, McLennan G, et al. Evaluation of lung MDCT nodule annotation across radiologists and methods. Acad Radiol 2006; 13:1254-1265 (Pubitemid 44345260)
17. Harris KM, Adams H, Lloyd DC, Harvey DJ. The effect on apparent size of simulated pulmonary nodules of using three standard CT window settings. Clin Radiol 1993; 47:241-244 (Pubitemid 23107896)
18. Petkovska I, Brown MS, Goldin JG, et al. The effect of lung volume on nodule size on CT. Acad Radiol 2007; 14:476-485 (Pubitemid 46401415)
19. Ko JP, Rusinek H, Jacobs EL, et al. Small pulmonary nodules: volume measurement at chest CT - phantom study. Radiology 2003; 228:864-870 (Pubitemid 37025500)
20. Way TW, Chan HP, Sahiner B, et al. Effect of CT scanning parameters on volumetric measurements of pulmonary nodules by 3D active contour segmentation: a phantom study. Phys Med Biol 2008; 53:1295-1312 (Pubitemid 351594427)
21. Mayo JR, Whittall KP, Leung AN, et al. Simulated dose reduction in conventional chest CT: validation study. Radiology 1997; 202:453-457 (Pubitemid 27051742)
22. Bland JM, Altman DG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1986; 1:307-310 (Pubitemid 16134762)
23. Zar JH. Biostatistical analysis, 5th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice-Hall, 2010:543-555
24. Hosmer DW, Lemeshow S. Applied logistic regression, 2nd ed. New York, NY: Wiley, 2000
25. National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements. Risk estimations for radiation protection. Bethesda, MD: NCRP Publications, 1993: NCRP report 115
26. Gietema HA, Wang Y, Xu D, et al. Pulmonary nodules detected by lung cancer screening: interobserver variability of semiautomated volume measurements. Radiology 2006; 241:251-257 (Pubitemid 44433358)
27. 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 (Pubitemid 38181058)
28. Hein PA, Romano VC, Rogalla P, et al. Variability of semiautomated lung nodule volumetry on ultralow-dose CT: comparison with nodule volumetry on standard-dose CT. J Digit Imaging 2010; 23:8-17
29. Hein PA, Romano VC, Rogalla P, et al. Linear and volume measurements of pulmonary nodules at different CT dose levels: intrascan and interscan analysis. Rofo 2009; 181:24-31
30. Nietert PJ, Ravenel JG, Leue WM, et al. Imprecision in automated volume measurements of pulmonary nodules and its effect on the level of uncertainty in volume doubling time estimation. Chest 2009; 135:1580-1587