Intra- and interobserver variability in CT measurements in oncology

Radiology

Volumn 269, Issue 2, 2013, Pages 451-459

  McErlean, Aoife ^a   Panicek, David M ^a   Zabor, Emily C ^a   Moskowitz, Chaya S ^a   Bitar, Richard ^a   Motzer, Robert J ^a   Hricak, Hedvig ^a   Ginsberg, Michelle S ^a  

^a MEMORIAL SLOAN KETTERING CANCER CENTER   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY SCANNER; COMPUTER ASSISTED TOMOGRAPHY; HUMAN; LIVER INJURY; LUNG LESION; LYMPH NODE; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALIGNANT NEOPLASTIC DISEASE; OBSERVER VARIATION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RADIOLOGIST; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY;

CLINICAL COMPETENCE; FEMALE; HUMANS; LIVER DISEASES; LUNG DISEASES; LYMPH NODES; MALE; OBSERVER VARIATION; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES; TOMOGRAPHY, X-RAY COMPUTED;

EID: 84886647658     PISSN: 00338419     EISSN: 15271315     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1148/radiol.13122665     Document Type: Article

References (20)

1. Edge SB. American Joint Committee on Cancer Staging manual. 7th ed. New York, NY: Springer, 2010.
2. Eisenhauer EA, Therasse P, Bogaerts J, et al. New response evaluation criteria in solid tumours: revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1). Eur J Cancer 2009;45(2):228-247.
3. Lederle FA, Wilson SE, Johnson GR, et al. Variability in measurement of abdominal aortic aneurysms. Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Detection and Management Veterans Administration Cooerative Study Group. J Vasc Surg 1995;21(6):945-952.
4. Oxnard GR, Zhao B, Sima CS, et al. Variability of lung tumor measurements on repeat computed tomography scans taken within 15 minutes. J Clin Oncol 2011;29(23):3114-3119.
5. Thiesse P, Ollivier L, Di Stefano-Louineau D, et al. Response rate accuracy in oncology trials: reasons for interobserver variability. Groupe Français d'Immunothérapie of the Fédération Nationale des Centres de Lutte Contre le Cancer. J Clin Oncol 1997;15(12):3507-3514.
6. Wormanns D, Diederich S, Lentschig MG, Winter F, Heindel W. Spiral CT of pulmonary nodules: interobserver variation in assessment of lesion size. Eur Radiol 2000;10(5):710-713. (Pubitemid 30321077)
7. Zhao B, Schwartz LH, Moskowitz CS, et al. Pulmonary metastases: effect of CT section thickness on measurement-initial experience. Radiology 2005;234(3):934-939. (Pubitemid 40250840)
8. Cayne NS, Veith FJ, Lisitz EC, et al. Variability of maximal aortic aneurysm diameter measurements on CT scan: significance and methods to minimize. J Vasc Surg 2004;39(4):811-815. (Pubitemid 38405813)
9. 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(13):2574-2582. (Pubitemid 46606340)
10. Hopper KD, Kasales CJ, Van Slyke MA, Schwartz TA, Ten Have TR, Jozefiak JA. Analysis of interobserver and intraobserver variability in CT tumor measurements. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1996;167(4):851-854. (Pubitemid 26322230)
11. Kakinuma R, Ashizawa K, Kuriyama K, et al. Measurement of focal ground-glass opacity diameters on CT images: interobserver agreement in regard to identifying increases in the size of ground-glass opacities. Acad Radiol 2012;19(4):389-394.
12. Zhao B, James LP, Moskowitz CS, et al. Evaluating variability in tumor measure ments from same-day repeat CT scans of patients with non-small cell lung cancer. Radiology 2009;252(1):263-272.
13. Bland JM, Altman DG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1986;1(8476):307-310. (Pubitemid 16134762)
14. Buerke B, Puesken M, Müter S, et al. Measurement accuracy and reproducibility of semiautomated metric and volumetric lymph node analysis in MDCT. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2010;195(4):979-985.
15. Revel MP, Bissery A, Bienvenu M, Aycard L, Lefort C, Frija G. Are two-dimensional CT measurements of small noncalcified pulmonary nodules reliable? Radiology 2004;231(2):453-458. (Pubitemid 38552904)
16. Gilles EM. Radiologic reviews: more second guessing from armchairs cannot lead the way [letter]. J Clin Oncol 2012;30(1):116.
17. Oxnard GR, Schwartz LH, Riely GJ. Reply to EM Gilles [letter]. J Clin Oncol 2012;30(1):117
18. Wever JJ, Blankensteijn JD, Van Rijn JC, Broeders IA, Eikelboom BC, Mali WP. Interand intraobserver variability of CT measurements obtained after endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2000;175(5):1279-1282.
19. Abada HT, Sapoval MR, Paul JF, De Maertelaer V, Mousseaux E, Gaux JC. Aneurysmal sizing after endovascular repair in patients with abdominal aortic aneurysm: interobserver variability of various measurement protocols and its clinical relevance. Eur Radiol 2003;13(12):2699-2704. (Pubitemid 37527076)
20. Yankelevitz DF, Reeves AP, Kostis WJ, Zhao B, Henschke CI. Small pulmonary nodules: volumetrically determined growth rates based on CT evaluation. Radiology 2000;217(1):251-256. (Pubitemid 33097610)