Literature DB >> 14658000

Reproducibility of linear tumor measurements using PACS: comparison of caliper method with edge-tracing method.

Wayne L Monsky1, Vassilios Raptopoulos, Mary T Keogan, David Doty, Ihab Kamel, Chun Sam Yam, Bernard J Ransil.   

Abstract

The aim of this study was to evaluate inter- and intra-observer reproducibility when making electronic caliper linear tumor measurements on picture archiving and communications systems (PACS) and compare them with linear measurements obtained from circumferential tracing of tumor perimeter. Three radiologists measured 64 masses from 30 patients on body CT scans in two separate settings. Long axis and perpendicular short axis were measured using electronic calipers. The edge of each tumor was traced electronically and the long and short axes were calculated by computer software. The reproducibility of a measurement was evaluated by computing and comparing the absolute value of the mean difference between initial and subsequent measurements. The mean differences +/-95% confidence interval (CI) between two measurements of the long by short axis were 3.8+/-2.6x3.1+/-1.8 mm when the caliper method was used and 3.5+/-2.0x3.2+/-1.5 mm when the tumor tracing method was used. There was no statistically significant difference in individual intra-observer reproducibility of tumor axes measurements. Neither long- nor short-axis single-dimension measurements resulted in significantly greater or lesser intra-observer reproducibility. When comparing caliper and tracing measurements, the overall mean difference (3.42+/-1.8 vs 3.38+/-1.4 mm) was not statistically significant. There was close correlation between the individual measurements made by each observer whether these were made by electronic calipers and when these were calculated from electronic tracings (Pearson correlations between 0.79 and 0.949). Current PACS systems allow reproducible linear, long or short axis, tumor measurements. There is no significant difference in reproducibility of measurements whether these are made directly with electronic calipers or calculated from tumor edge tracings.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2003        PMID: 14658000     DOI: 10.1007/s00330-003-2027-0

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur Radiol        ISSN: 0938-7994            Impact factor:   5.315


  17 in total

1.  Radiologic measurement of tumor size in clinical trials: past, present, and future.

Authors:  S Saini
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2001-02       Impact factor: 3.959

2.  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.

Authors:  P Therasse; S G Arbuck; E A Eisenhauer; J Wanders; R S Kaplan; L Rubinstein; J Verweij; M Van Glabbeke; A T van Oosterom; M C Christian; S G Gwyther
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2000-02-02       Impact factor: 13.506

3.  Use of multidetector row CT with volume renderings in right lobe living liver transplantation.

Authors:  Minoru Ishifuro; Jun Horiguchi; Aya Nakashige; Akihisa Tamura; Kazushi Marukawa; Hiroshi Fukuda; Chiaki Ono; Yuji Akiyama; Toshio Kushima; Katsuhide Ito
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2002-05-22       Impact factor: 5.315

4.  The effect of measuring error on the results of therapeutic trials in advanced cancer.

Authors:  C G Moertel; J A Hanley
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  1976-07       Impact factor: 6.860

5.  Toxicity and response criteria of the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group.

Authors:  M M Oken; R H Creech; D C Tormey; J Horton; T E Davis; E T McFadden; P P Carbone
Journal:  Am J Clin Oncol       Date:  1982-12       Impact factor: 2.339

6.  Evaluation of tumor measurements in oncology: use of film-based and electronic techniques.

Authors:  L H Schwartz; M S Ginsberg; D DeCorato; L N Rothenberg; S Einstein; P Kijewski; D M Panicek
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2000-05       Impact factor: 44.544

7.  Analysis of interobserver and intraobserver variability in CT tumor measurements.

Authors:  K D Hopper; C J Kasales; M A Van Slyke; T A Schwartz; T R TenHave; J A Jozefiak
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  1996-10       Impact factor: 3.959

8.  Criteria of tumor response used in clinical trials of chemotherapy.

Authors:  K Tonkin; D Tritchler; I Tannock
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  1985-06       Impact factor: 44.544

9.  Studies in variation associated with the measurement of solid tumors.

Authors:  P T Lavin; G Flowerdew
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  1980-09-01       Impact factor: 6.860

10.  Influence of measurement error on assessment of response to anticancer chemotherapy: proposal for new criteria of tumor response.

Authors:  D Warr; S McKinney; I Tannock
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  1984-09       Impact factor: 44.544

View more
  9 in total

1.  The influence of initial outlines on manual segmentation.

Authors:  William F Sensakovic; Adam Starkey; Rachael Roberts; Christopher Straus; Philip Caligiuri; Masha Kocherginsky; Samuel G Armato
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2010-05       Impact factor: 4.071

2.  CT evaluation of response in advanced gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors treated with long-acting-repeatable octreotide: what is the optimal size variation threshold?

Authors:  Yanji Luo; Jie Chen; Bingqi Shen; Meng Wang; Huasong Cai; Ling Xu; Luohai Chen; Minhu Chen; Zi-Ping Li; Shi-Ting Feng
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2018-06-06       Impact factor: 5.315

3.  Interobserver agreement of semi-automated and manual measurements of functional MRI metrics of treatment response in hepatocellular carcinoma.

Authors:  David Bonekamp; Susanne Bonekamp; Vivek Gowdra Halappa; Jean-Francois H Geschwind; John Eng; Celia Pamela Corona-Villalobos; Timothy M Pawlik; Ihab R Kamel
Journal:  Eur J Radiol       Date:  2013-12-03       Impact factor: 3.528

4.  Interobserver and Intraobserver Variability among Measurements of FDG PET/CT Parameters in Pulmonary Tumors.

Authors:  Gülgün Büyükdereli; Mehtap Güler; Gülşah Şeydaoğlu
Journal:  Balkan Med J       Date:  2016-05-01       Impact factor: 2.021

5.  Quantitative 4D transcatheter intraarterial perfusion MRI for standardizing angiographic chemoembolization endpoints.

Authors:  Brian Jin; Dingxin Wang; Robert J Lewandowski; Robert K Ryu; Kent T Sato; Andrew C Larson; Riad Salem; Reed A Omary
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2011-11       Impact factor: 3.959

6.  MRI and CT in the follow-up after irreversible electroporation of small renal masses.

Authors:  Mara Buijs; Daniel M de Bruin; Peter Gk Wagstaff; Patricia J Zondervan; Matthijs JV Scheltema; Marc W Engelbrecht; Maria P Laguna; Krijn P van Lienden
Journal:  Diagn Interv Radiol       Date:  2021-09       Impact factor: 2.630

7.  Brain MRI measurements at a term-equivalent age and their relationship to neurodevelopmental outcomes.

Authors:  H W Park; H-K Yoon; S B Han; B S Lee; I Y Sung; K S Kim; E A Kim
Journal:  AJNR Am J Neuroradiol       Date:  2013-08-29       Impact factor: 3.825

8.  Inter-observer agreement improves with PERCIST 1.0 as opposed to qualitative evaluation in non-small cell lung cancer patients evaluated with F-18-FDG PET/CT early in the course of chemo-radiotherapy.

Authors:  Joan Fledelius; Azza Khalil; Karin Hjorthaug; Jørgen Frøkiær
Journal:  EJNMMI Res       Date:  2016-09-22       Impact factor: 3.138

9.  MR and CT imaging characteristics and ablation zone volumetry of locally advanced pancreatic cancer treated with irreversible electroporation.

Authors:  Laurien G P H Vroomen; Hester J Scheffer; Marleen C A M Melenhorst; Marcus C de Jong; Janneke E van den Bergh; Cornelis van Kuijk; Foke van Delft; Geert Kazemier; Martijn R Meijerink
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2016-09-22       Impact factor: 5.315

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.