Determining the variability of lesion size measurements from CT patient data sets acquired under “no change” conditions

Translational Oncology

Volumn 8, Issue 1, 2015, Pages 55-64

  McNitt Gray, Michael F ^a   Kim, Grace Hyun ^a   Zhao, Binsheng ^b   Schwartz, Lawrence H ^b   Clunie, David ^c,i   Cohen, Kristin ^d,i   Petrick, Nicholas ^e   Fenimore, Charles ^f,g   John Lu, Z Q ^g   Buckler, Andrew J ^h  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^b Department of Medicine   (United States)

^c PixelMed Publishing   (United States)

^d JANSSEN RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT   (United States)

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

^f The Image Quality Measurement Consultancy   (United States)

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

^h Elucid Bioimaging Inc   (United States)

ⁱ Core Lab Partners Inc ^*  (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CANCER SIZE; CLINICAL ARTICLE; COMPUTER ASSISTED TOMOGRAPHY; DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING; HUMAN; NON SMALL CELL LUNG CANCER; SEQUENTIAL ANALYSIS; THREE DIMENSIONAL IMAGING; TUMOR VOLUME;

EID: 84929915463     PISSN: None     EISSN: 19365233     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.tranon.2015.01.001     Document Type: Article

References (19)

1. Therasse P, Arbuck SG, and Eisenhauer EA, et al (2000). New guidelines to evaluate the response to treatment in solid tumors. J Natl Cancer Inst 92, 205–216
2. Eisenhauer EA, Therasse P, Bogaerts J, Schwartz LH, Sargent D, Ford R, Dancey J, Arbuck S, Gwyther S, and Mooney M, et al (2009). New response evaluation criteria in solid tumours: revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1). Eur J Cancer 45(2), 228–247
3. Mozley PD, Bendtsen C, Zhao B, Schwartz LH, Thorn M, Rong Y, Zhang L, Perrone A, Korn R, and Buckler AJ (2012). Measurement of tumor volumes improves RECIST-based response assessments in advanced lung cancer. Transl Oncol 5(1), 19–25
4. McNitt-Gray MF, Bidaut LM, Armato SG, Meyer CR, Gavrielides MA, Fenimore C, McLennan G, Petrick N, Zhao B, and Reeves AP, et al (2009). Computed tomography assessment of response to therapy: tumor volume change measurement, truth data, and error. Transl Oncol 2(4), 216–222
5. Meyer CR, Armato SG, Fenimore CP, McLennan G, Bidaut LM, Barboriak DP, Gavrielides MA, Jackson EF, McNitt-Gray MF, and Kinahan PE, et al (2009). Quantitative imaging to assess tumor response to therapy: common themes of measurement, truth data, and error sources. Transl Oncol 2(4), 198–210
6. Petrick N, Kim HJ, Clunie D, Borradaile K, Ford R, Zeng R, Gavrielides MA, McNitt-Gray MF, Lu ZQ, and Fenimore C, et al (2014). Comparison of 1D, 2D, and 3D nodule sizing methods by radiologists for spherical and complex nodules on thoracic CT phantom images. Acad Radiol 21(1), 30–40
7. Zhao B, James LP, Moskowitz CS, Guo P, Ginsberg MS, Lefkowitz RA, Qin Y, Riely GJ, Kris MG, and Schwartz LH (2009). Evaluating variability in tumor measurements from same-day repeat CT scans of patients with non–small cell lung cancer. Radiology 252(1), 263–272
8. Oxnard GR, Zhao B, Sima CS, Ginsberg MS, James LP, Lefkowitz RA, Guo P, Kris MG, Schwartz LH, and Riely GJ (2011). Variability of lung tumor measurements on repeat computed tomography scans taken within 15 minutes. J Clin Oncol 29(23), 3114–3119
9. Armato III S, Meyer C, McNitt-Gray M, McLennan G, Reeves A, Croft B, and Clarke L (2008). The Reference Image Database to Evaluate Response to therapy in lung cancer (RIDER) project: a resource for the development of changeanalysis software. Clin Pharmacol Ther 84(4), 448–456 [Image data accessible at https://public.cancerimagingarchive.net/ncia/login.jsf and https://wiki.cancerimagingarchive.net/display/Public/RIDER+Collections; both accessed September 22, 2014]
10. CT Volumetry Technical Committee (2012). CT Tumor Volume Change (CTV-1), Quantitative Imaging Biomarkers Alliance. Version 2.2. Reviewed Draft. QIBA; 2012 [Available from http://rsna.org/uploadedFiles/RSNA/Content/Science:and_Education/QIBA/QIBA_CT%20Vol_TumorVolumeChangePr o f i l e_v 2. 2_PubliclyReviewedVersion_08AUG2012.pdf (accessed September 22, 2014)]
11. Bankier A, Levine D, Halpern EF, and Kressel HY (2010). Consensus interpretation in imaging research: is there a better way? Radiology 257(1), 14–17
12. Buckler AJ, Mozley PD, Schwartz L, Petrick N, McNitt-Gray M, Fenimore C, O'Donnell K, Hayes W, Kim HJ, and Clarke L, et al (2010). Volumetric CT in lung cancer: an example for the qualification of imaging as a biomarker. Acad Radiol 17(1), 107–115
13. Jolly MP and Grady L (2008). 3D general lesion segmentation in CT. 5th IEEE International Symposium on Biomedical Imaging (ISBI): From Nano to Macro; 2008. p. 796–799
14. Grady L (2006). Random walks for image segmentation. IEEE Trans Pattern Anal Mach Intell 28(11), 1768–1783
15. Bland JM and Altman DG (1986). Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 327(8476), 307–310
16. Laird N, Lange N, and Stram D (1987). Maximum likelihood computations with repeated measures: application of the EM algorithm. J Am Stat Assoc 82, 97–105
17. Kessler LG, Barnhart HX, and Buckler AJ, et al (2014). The emerging science of quantitative imaging biomarkers terminology and definitions for scientific studies and regulatory submissions. Stat Methods Med Res [pii: 0962280214537333, Epub ahead of print]
18. Obuchowski NA, Barnhar HX, and Buckler AJ, et al (2014). Statistical issues in the comparison of quantitative imaging biomarker algorithms using pulmonary nodule volume as an example. Stat Methods Med Res [pii: 0962280214537392, Epub ahead of print]
19. Chow SC, Shao J, and Wang H (2003). Sample Size Calculations in Clinical Research. New York: Marcel Dekker; 2003 41–73.