Comparison of 1D, 2D, and 3D Nodule Sizing Methods by Radiologists for Spherical and Complex Nodules on Thoracic CT Phantom Images

Academic Radiology

Volumn 21, Issue 1, 2014, Pages 30-40

  Petrick, Nicholas ^a   Kim, Hyun J Grace ^b,c   Clunie, David ^d   Borradaile, Kristin ^d   Ford, Robert ^e   Zeng, Rongping ^a   Gavrielides, Marios A ^a   McNitt Gray, Michael F ^b   Lu, Z Q John ^f   Fenimore, Charles ^f   Zhao, Binsheng ^g   Buckler, Andrew J ^h  

^a CENTER FOR DEVICES AND RADIOLOGICAL HEALTH   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^d CoreLab Partners Inc ^*  (United States)

^e Clinical Trials Imaging Consulting   (United States)

^f NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF STANDARDS AND TECHNOLOGY   (United States)

^g Department of Medicine   (United States)

^h Elucid Bioimaging Inc   (United States)

Author keywords

Computer tomography; Lung nodules; Phantom study; Volumetric tumor measurement

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BIDIMENSIONAL IMAGING; CANCER SIZE; COMPUTER ASSISTED TOMOGRAPHY; EARLY CANCER; ELLIPTICAL NODULE; IMAGING PHANTOM; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; LOBULATED NODULE; LUNG CANCER; LUNG NODULE; NODULE SIZE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RADIOLOGICAL PARAMETERS; RADIOLOGIST; SPHERICAL NODULE; SPICULATED NODULE; THREE DIMENSIONAL IMAGING; UNIDIMENSIONAL IMAGING;

COMPUTER TOMOGRAPHY; LUNG NODULES; PHANTOM STUDY; VOLUMETRIC TUMOR MEASUREMENT;

EQUIPMENT DESIGN; HUMANS; IMAGING, THREE-DIMENSIONAL; OBSERVER VARIATION; PHANTOMS, IMAGING; RADIOGRAPHIC IMAGE INTERPRETATION, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; RADIOGRAPHY, THORACIC; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; SOLITARY PULMONARY NODULE; TOMOGRAPHY, X-RAY COMPUTED;

EID: 84890149161     PISSN: 10766332     EISSN: 18784046     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.acra.2013.09.020     Document Type: Article

References (26)

1. Aberle D.R., Adams A.M., Berg C.D., et al. Reduced lung-cancer mortality with low-dose computed tomographic screening. N Engl J Med 2011, 365(5):395-409. National Lung Screening Trial Research Team.
2. Henschke C.I., Yankelevitz D.F., Libby D.M., et al. Survival of patients with stage I lung cancer detected on CT screening. N Engl J Med 2006, 355(17):1763-1771. International Early Lung Cancer Action Program Investigators, [see comment].
3. 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(1):100-106.
4. Goldstraw P. The 7th Edition of TNM in Lung Cancer: what now?. J Thorac Oncol 2009, 4(6):671-673.
5. Goldstraw P., Crowley J., Chansky K., et al. The IASLC Lung Cancer Staging Project: proposals for the revision of the TNM stage groupings in the forthcoming (seventh) edition of the TNM Classification of malignant tumours. JThorac Oncol 2007, 2(8):706-714. [Erratum appears in J Thorac Oncol. 2007 Oct;2(10):985].
6. 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(9):1751-1755.
7. Eisenhauer E.A., 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.
8. Suzuki C., Jacobsson H., Hatschek T., et al. Radiologic measurements of tumor response to treatment: practical approaches and limitations. Radiographics 2008, 28(2):329-344.
9. Gavrielides M.A., Kinnard L.M., Myers K.J., et al. Noncalcified lung nodules:volumetric assessment with thoracic CT. Radiology 2009, 251(1):26-37.
10. Zhao B., James L.P., Moskowitz C.S., et al. Evaluating variability in tumor measurements from same-day repeat CT scans of patients with non-small cell lung cancer. Radiology 2009, 252(1):263-272.
11. Zhao B., Schwartz L.H., Moskowitz C.S., et al. Lung cancer: computerized quantification of tumor response-initial results. Radiology 2006, 241(3):892-898.
12. Chen B., Barnhart H., Richard S., et al. Quantitative CT: technique dependence of volume estimation on pulmonary nodules. Phys Med Biol 2012, 57(5):1335-1348.
13. Das M., Ley-Zaporozhan J., Gietema H.A., et al. Accuracy of automated volumetry of pulmonary nodules across different multislice CT scanners. Eur Radiol 2007, 17(8):1979-1984.
14. 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(12):1355-1360.
15. Ko J.P., Rusinek H., Jacobs E.L., et al. Small pulmonary nodules: volume measurement at chest CT-phantom study. Radiology 2003, 228(3):864-870.
16. Brandman S., Ko J.P. Pulmonary nodule detection, characterization, and management with multidetector computed tomography. J Thorac Imaging 2011, 26(2):90-105.
17. de Hoop B., Gietema H., van Ginneken B., et al. A comparison of six software packages for evaluation of solid lung nodules using semi-automated volumetry: what is the minimum increase in size to detect growth in repeated CT examinations. Eur Radiol 2009, 19(4):800-808.
18. Gavrielides M.A., Zeng R., Myers K.J., et al. Benefit of overlapping reconstruction for improving the quantitative assessment of CT lung nodule volume. Acad Radiol 2013, 20(2):173-180.
19. Quantitative Imaging Biomarkers Alliance. Radiological Society of North America (RSNA); 2010. Available at: Accessed October 23, 2013. http://www.rsna.org/research/qiba.cfm.
20. Petrick N., Kim H.J.G., Clunie D., et al. Evaluation of 1D, 2D and 3D nodule size estimation by radiologists for spherical and non-spherical nodules through CT thoracic phantom imaging. SPIE Medical Imaging 2011, SPIE, Lake Buena Vista, Florida, USA, 79630D1-7963D7. 1 ed. R.M. Summers, B. van Ginneken (Eds.).
21. Gavrielides M.A., Kinnard L.M., Myers K.J., et al. A resource for the development of methodologies for lung nodule size estimation: database of thoracic CT scans of an anthropomorphic phantom. Opt Express 2010, 18(4):15244-15255.
22. WHO handbook for reporting results of cancer treatment 1979, World Health Organization, World Health Organisation, Geneva, Switzerland.
23. Jolly M.P., Grady L. 3D general lesion segmentation in CT. Proc IEEE Int Symp Biomed Imaging 2008, 796-799.
24. Grady L. Random walks for image segmentation. IEEE Trans Pattern Anal Mach Intell 2006, 28(11):1768-1783.
25. Altman D.G. Practical statistics for medical research 1991, Chapman and Hall/CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.
26. Lin L.I. A concordance correlation coefficient to evaluate reproducibility. Biometrics 1989, 45(1):255-268.