RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: A critical element in determining biologic behavior of pulmonary nodules is volume and temporal volume change. We evaluate variability in nodule volume among readers and measuring methods. MATERIALS AND METHODS: 55 small (<2 cm) lung nodules were measured in long- and short-axis dimensions independently by 4 radiologists, using 3 methods: 1) hard copy, 2) GE Advantage Windows workstation (GE Healthcare, Milwaukee, WI), 3) Siemens IMACS workstation (Siemens Medical Systems, Iselan, NJ). Nodule margin was recorded as smooth, lobulated, or spiculated. Volume was calculated from diameter measurements. Variability in nodule volume was evaluated within each reader, between readers, and across measurement tools. RESULTS: Mean nodule short-axis diameter was 5.3 mm; mean long-axis diameter 7.2 mm. There was statistically significant variation among readers and measurement method for nodule volume. Volume was significantly larger using hard-copy measurements (51.9%-54.1% variation; P < .0001) than either workstation, and not different between workstations. There was greater intraobserver variability in volume using the hard-copy method, and no difference between workstation methods. Volumes based on measurements from one reader were consistently lower than those from other readers (P = < .001, .003, and .02); volume was consistently larger for another reader (P < .0001, .03, and .12). Reader agreement for nodule margin was good to excellent. CONCLUSION: Considerable interobserver and intraobserver variability in measuring nodules exists using hard-copy and computer tools. Since a small change in diameter indicates a much larger change in volume, this may be significant when using early repeat CT to follow small pulmonary nodules. Computer-aided diagnostic tools that reproducibly measure nodule volume are strongly needed.
RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: A critical element in determining biologic behavior of pulmonary nodules is volume and temporal volume change. We evaluate variability in nodule volume among readers and measuring methods. MATERIALS AND METHODS: 55 small (<2 cm) lung nodules were measured in long- and short-axis dimensions independently by 4 radiologists, using 3 methods: 1) hard copy, 2) GE Advantage Windows workstation (GE Healthcare, Milwaukee, WI), 3) Siemens IMACS workstation (Siemens Medical Systems, Iselan, NJ). Nodule margin was recorded as smooth, lobulated, or spiculated. Volume was calculated from diameter measurements. Variability in nodule volume was evaluated within each reader, between readers, and across measurement tools. RESULTS: Mean nodule short-axis diameter was 5.3 mm; mean long-axis diameter 7.2 mm. There was statistically significant variation among readers and measurement method for nodule volume. Volume was significantly larger using hard-copy measurements (51.9%-54.1% variation; P < .0001) than either workstation, and not different between workstations. There was greater intraobserver variability in volume using the hard-copy method, and no difference between workstation methods. Volumes based on measurements from one reader were consistently lower than those from other readers (P = < .001, .003, and .02); volume was consistently larger for another reader (P < .0001, .03, and .12). Reader agreement for nodule margin was good to excellent. CONCLUSION: Considerable interobserver and intraobserver variability in measuring nodules exists using hard-copy and computer tools. Since a small change in diameter indicates a much larger change in volume, this may be significant when using early repeat CT to follow small pulmonary nodules. Computer-aided diagnostic tools that reproducibly measure nodule volume are strongly needed.
Authors: Marco Das; Julia Ley-Zaporozhan; H A Gietema; Andre Czech; Georg Mühlenbruch; Andreas H Mahnken; Markus Katoh; Annemarie Bakai; Marcos Salganicoff; Stefan Diederich; Mathias Prokop; Hans-Ulrich Kauczor; Rolf W Günther; Joachim E Wildberger Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2007-01-06 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Charles R Meyer; Timothy D Johnson; Geoffrey McLennan; Denise R Aberle; Ella A Kazerooni; Heber Macmahon; Brian F Mullan; David F Yankelevitz; Edwin J R van Beek; Samuel G Armato; Michael F McNitt-Gray; Anthony P Reeves; David Gur; Claudia I Henschke; Eric A Hoffman; Peyton H Bland; Gary Laderach; Richie Pais; David Qing; Chris Piker; Junfeng Guo; Adam Starkey; Daniel Max; Barbara Y Croft; Laurence P Clarke Journal: Acad Radiol Date: 2006-10 Impact factor: 3.173
Authors: Anthony P Reeves; Alberto M Biancardi; Tatiyana V Apanasovich; Charles R Meyer; Heber MacMahon; Edwin J R van Beek; Ella A Kazerooni; David Yankelevitz; Michael F McNitt-Gray; Geoffrey McLennan; Samuel G Armato; Claudia I Henschke; Denise R Aberle; Barbara Y Croft; Laurence P Clarke Journal: Acad Radiol Date: 2007-12 Impact factor: 3.173
Authors: Iva Petkovska; Matthew S Brown; Jonathan G Goldin; Hyun J Kim; Michael F McNitt-Gray; Fereidoun G Abtin; Raffi J Ghurabi; Denise R Aberle Journal: Acad Radiol Date: 2007-04 Impact factor: 3.173
Authors: Satinder Singh; Paul Pinsky; Naomi S Fineberg; David S Gierada; Kavita Garg; Yanhui Sun; P Hrudaya Nath Journal: Radiology Date: 2011-01-19 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Charles R Meyer; Samuel G Armato; Charles P Fenimore; Geoffrey McLennan; Luc M Bidaut; Daniel P Barboriak; Marios A Gavrielides; Edward F Jackson; Michael F McNitt-Gray; Paul E Kinahan; Nicholas Petrick; Binsheng Zhao Journal: Transl Oncol Date: 2009-12 Impact factor: 4.243