PURPOSE: To assess the effect of commonly used computed tomographic (CT) section thicknesses on metastatic tumor measurements calculated with unidimensional, bidimensional, area, and volumetric methods. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Analysis and data collection were approved by the Institutional Review Board, with waived informed patient consent. Forty-two pulmonary metastases in 10 patients (three men and seven women; age range, 43-83 years; mean age, 65.4 years) were analyzed on CT scans obtained with 3.75-, 5.0-, and 7.5-mm section thicknesses. The lesions were automatically delineated by using a three-dimensional multicriteria segmentation algorithm. Unidimensional (the largest diameter), bidimensional (the product of the two maximal perpendicular diameters), maximal cross-sectional area, and volumetric measurements were automatically obtained for each pulmonary lesion on each section thickness. Means and variances were calculated, and the differences across the three section thicknesses for each of the four measurements were studied by using linear mixed-effects models. The Levene test was used to study the equality of variances. RESULTS: Differences in the means for unidimensional, bidimensional, and area measurements were significant between a section thickness of 3.75 and 5.0 mm (unidimensional, P=.05; bidimensional, P=.05; area, P=.01) and 3.75 and 7.5 mm (unidimensional, P=.06; bidimensional, P=.03; area, P=.02), but not 5.0 and 7.5 mm. There was a significant difference in volumetric measurement as section thickness decreased from 7.5 to 5.0 mm (P <.001) and from 7.5 to 3.75 mm (P <.001). Although there was a slight trend for differences in the variances across section thickness for each measurement, none of the differences were significant. CONCLUSION: Volumetric tumor measurements change with a reduction in section thickness from 7.5 to 5.0 and 3.75 mm. For unidimensional measurement, no change was found when thickness decreased from 7.5 to 5.0 mm.
PURPOSE: To assess the effect of commonly used computed tomographic (CT) section thicknesses on metastatic tumor measurements calculated with unidimensional, bidimensional, area, and volumetric methods. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Analysis and data collection were approved by the Institutional Review Board, with waived informed patient consent. Forty-two pulmonary metastases in 10 patients (three men and seven women; age range, 43-83 years; mean age, 65.4 years) were analyzed on CT scans obtained with 3.75-, 5.0-, and 7.5-mm section thicknesses. The lesions were automatically delineated by using a three-dimensional multicriteria segmentation algorithm. Unidimensional (the largest diameter), bidimensional (the product of the two maximal perpendicular diameters), maximal cross-sectional area, and volumetric measurements were automatically obtained for each pulmonary lesion on each section thickness. Means and variances were calculated, and the differences across the three section thicknesses for each of the four measurements were studied by using linear mixed-effects models. The Levene test was used to study the equality of variances. RESULTS: Differences in the means for unidimensional, bidimensional, and area measurements were significant between a section thickness of 3.75 and 5.0 mm (unidimensional, P=.05; bidimensional, P=.05; area, P=.01) and 3.75 and 7.5 mm (unidimensional, P=.06; bidimensional, P=.03; area, P=.02), but not 5.0 and 7.5 mm. There was a significant difference in volumetric measurement as section thickness decreased from 7.5 to 5.0 mm (P <.001) and from 7.5 to 3.75 mm (P <.001). Although there was a slight trend for differences in the variances across section thickness for each measurement, none of the differences were significant. CONCLUSION: Volumetric tumor measurements change with a reduction in section thickness from 7.5 to 5.0 and 3.75 mm. For unidimensional measurement, no change was found when thickness decreased from 7.5 to 5.0 mm.
Authors: Mizuki Nishino; David M Jackman; Hiroto Hatabu; Pasi A Jänne; Bruce E Johnson; Annick D Van den Abbeele Journal: Acad Radiol Date: 2011-01-28 Impact factor: 3.173
Authors: Mizuki Nishino; Mengye Guo; David M Jackman; Pamela J DiPiro; Jeffrey T Yap; Tak K Ho; Hiroto Hatabu; Pasi A Jänne; Annick D Van den Abbeele; Bruce E Johnson Journal: Acad Radiol Date: 2010-10-30 Impact factor: 3.173
Authors: Paul J Nietert; James G Ravenel; William M Leue; James V Miller; Katherine K Taylor; Elizabeth S Garrett-Mayer; Gerard A Silvestri Journal: Chest Date: 2009-01-13 Impact factor: 9.410
Authors: James G Ravenel; William M Leue; Paul J Nietert; James V Miller; Katherine K Taylor; Gerard A Silvestri Journal: Radiology Date: 2008-05 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Binsheng Zhao; Leonard P James; Chaya S Moskowitz; Pingzhen Guo; Michelle S Ginsberg; Robert A Lefkowitz; Yilin Qin; Gregory J Riely; Mark G Kris; Lawrence H Schwartz Journal: Radiology Date: 2009-07 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Geoffrey R Oxnard; Binsheng Zhao; Camelia S Sima; Michelle S Ginsberg; Leonard P James; Robert A Lefkowitz; Pingzhen Guo; Mark G Kris; Lawrence H Schwartz; Gregory J Riely Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2011-07-05 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Michael F McNitt-Gray; Luc M Bidaut; Samuel G Armato; Charles R Meyer; Marios A Gavrielides; Charles Fenimore; Geoffrey McLennan; Nicholas Petrick; Binsheng Zhao; Anthony P Reeves; Reinhard Beichel; Hyun-Jung Grace Kim; Lisa Kinnard Journal: Transl Oncol Date: 2009-12 Impact factor: 4.243