Pulmonary Tumor Measurements from X-Ray Computed Tomography in One, Two, and Three Dimensions

Academic Radiology

Volumn 18, Issue 11, 2011, Pages 1391-1402

  Villemaire, Lauren ^a,b   Owrangi, Amir M ^a,b   Etemad Rezai, Roya ^b   Wilson, Laura ^a   O'Riordan, Elaine ^b   Keller, Harry ^b   Driscoll, Brandon ^b   Bauman, Glenn ^c   Fenster, Aaron ^a,b   Parraga, Grace ^a,b  

^a ROBARTS RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (Canada)

^b UNIVERSITY HEALTH NETWORK   (Canada)

^c UNIVERSITY OF WESTERN ONTARIO   (Canada)

Author keywords

Pulmonary metastases; Response evaluation criteria in solid tumors; Three dimensional tumor measurements; World Health Organization; X ray computed tomography

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CLINICAL ARTICLE; COMPUTER ASSISTED TOMOGRAPHY; CORRELATION COEFFICIENT; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; FOLLOW UP; HUMAN; IMAGE ANALYSIS; IMAGE QUALITY; LUNG METASTASIS; ONE DIMENSIONAL IMAGING; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REPRODUCIBILITY; THREE DIMENSIONAL IMAGING; TUMOR CLASSIFICATION; TUMOR VOLUME; TWO DIMENSIONAL IMAGING; X RAY;

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; HUMANS; IMAGING, THREE-DIMENSIONAL; LUNG NEOPLASMS; PHANTOMS, IMAGING; RADIOGRAPHIC IMAGE INTERPRETATION, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; TOMOGRAPHY, X-RAY COMPUTED;

EID: 80053615933     PISSN: 10766332     EISSN: 18784046     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.acra.2011.07.010     Document Type: Article

References (26)

1. Schwartz L.H., Colville J.A., Ginsberg M.S., et al. Measuring tumor response and shape change on CT: esophageal cancer as a paradigm. Ann Oncol 2006, 17:1018-1023.
2. Dempsey M.F., Condon B.R., Hadley D.M. Measurement of tumor "size" in recurrent malignant glioma: 1D, 2D, or 3D?. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2005, 26:770-776.
3. World Health Organization: WHO Handbook for reporting results of cancer treatment WHO offset publication no. 48 1979, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland.
4. Miller A.B., Hoogstraten B., Staquet M., et al. Reporting results of cancer treatment. Cancer 1981, 47:207-214.
5. Therasse P., Arbuck S.G., Eisenhauer E.A., 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.
6. Belton A.L., Saini S., Liebermann K., et al. Tumor size measurement in an oncology clinical trial: comparison between off-site and on-site measurements. Clin Radiol 2003, 58:311-314.
7. Lavin P.T., Flowerdew G. Studies in variation associated with the measurement of solid tumors. Cancer 1980, 46:1286-1290.
8. Mozley P.D., Schwartz L.H., Bendtsen C., et al. Change in lung tumor volume as a biomarker of treatment response: a critical review of the evidence. Ann Oncol 2010, 21:1751-1755.
9. Revel M.P., Bissery A., Bienvenu M., et al. Are two-dimensional CT measurements of small noncalcified pulmonary nodules reliable?. Radiology 2004, 231:453-458.
10. Thiesse P., Ollivier L., Di Stefano-Louineau D., et al. Response rate accuracy in oncology trials: reasons for interobserver variability. Groupe Francais d'Immunotherapie of the Federation Nationale des Centres de Lutte Contre le Cancer. J Clin Oncol 1997, 15:3507-3514.
11. Mantatzis M., Kakolyris S., Amarantidis K., et al. Treatment response classification of liver metastatic disease evaluated on imaging. Are RECIST unidimensional measurements accurate?. Eur Radiol 2009, 19:1809-1816.
12. Ravenel J.G., Leue W.M., Nietert P.J., et al. Pulmonary nodule volume: effects of reconstruction parameters on automated measurements-a phantom study. Radiology 2008, 247:400-408.
13. Sohaib S.A., Turner B., Hanson J.A., et al. CT assessment of tumour response to treatment: comparison of linear, cross-sectional and volumetric measures of tumour size. Br J Radiol 2000, 73:1178-1184.
14. Zhao B., Schwartz L.H., Moskowitz C.S., et al. Lung cancer: computerized quantification of tumor response-initial results. Radiology 2006, 241:892-898.
15. Shah G.D., Kesari S., Xu R., et al. Comparison of linear and volumetric criteria in assessing tumor response in adult high-grade gliomas. Neuro Oncol 2006, 8:38-46.
16. Tran L.N., Brown M.S., Goldin J.G., et al. Comparison of treatment response classifications between unidimensional, bidimensional, and volumetric measurements of metastatic lung lesions on chest computed tomography. Acad Radiol 2004, 11:1355-1360.
17. Buckler A.J., Mulshine J.L., Gottlieb R., et al. The use of volumetric CT as an imaging biomarker in lung cancer. Acad Radiol 2010, 17:100-106.
18. Yankelevitz D.F., Reeves A.P., Kostis W.J., et al. Small pulmonary nodules: volumetrically determined growth rates based on CT evaluation. Radiology 2000, 217:251-256.
19. Goodman L.R., Gulsun M., Washington L., et al. Inherent variability of CT lung nodule measurements in vivo using semiautomated volumetric measurements. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2006, 186:989-994.
20. Sohns C., Mangelsdorf J., Sossalla S., et al. Measurement of response of pulmonal tumors in 64-slice MDCT. Acta Radiol 2010, 51:512-521.
21. Prionas N.D., Ray S., Boone J.M. Volume assessment accuracy in computed tomography: a phantom study. J Appl Clin Med Phys 2010, 11:3037.
22. Erasmus J.J., Gladish G.W., 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.
23. Landry A., Spence J.D., Fenster A. Quantification of carotid plaque volume measurements using 3D ultrasound imaging. Ultrasound Med Biol 2005, 31:751-762.
24. Petrou M., Quint L.E., Nan B., et al. Pulmonary nodule volumetric measurement variability as a function of CT slice thickness and nodule morphology. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2007, 188:306-312.
25. Winer-Muram H.T., Jennings S.G., Meyer C.A., et al. Effect of varying CT section width on volumetric measurement of lung tumors and application of compensatory equations. Radiology 2003, 229:184-194.
26. Hopper K.D., Kasales C.J., Van Slyke M.A., et al. Analysis of interobserver and intraobserver variability in CT tumor measurements. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1996, 167:851-854.