OBJECTIVE: The objective of our study was to evaluate repeatability and reproducibility of lung nodule volume measurements using volumetric nodule-sizing software. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fifty nodules, less than 20 mm in diameter, in 29 patients were scanned with 1.25-mm collimation using MDCT (time 1 = T1). During the same session, two additional scans, using identical technique, were obtained through each nodule (T2, T3). Three observers working independently then obtained volumetric measurements using a semiautomated volumetric nodule-sizing software package. Qualitative nodule characterization was also performed. The Bland-Altman method for assessing measurement agreement was used to calculate the 95% limits for agreement for nodule volumes at T1, T2, and T3. RESULTS: Automated nodule segmentation was successful in 438 (97%) of 450 measurements. Forty-three nodules were available for final evaluation. Twenty-six nodules had well-defined edges, and 17 had irregular or spiculated margins. Seventeen were freestanding, 16 were juxtapleural, and 10 were juxtavascular in location. Average nodule volume was 345.5 mm(3) (range, 49.3-1,434 mm(3)). The mean interobserver variability (repeatability) was 0.018% (SD = 0.73%), and the SD of the mean for the three contemporaneous scans (reproducibility) was 13.1% (confidence limits, +/- 25.6%). SD and confidence limits narrowed as volumes increased. CONCLUSION: Volumetric measurements show minimal interobserver variability (0.018%) but an interscan SEM of 13.1% (confidence limits, +/- 25.6%). Repeatability and reproducibility of volumetric measurements are better than those of linear measurements reported in the literature.
OBJECTIVE: The objective of our study was to evaluate repeatability and reproducibility of lung nodule volume measurements using volumetric nodule-sizing software. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fifty nodules, less than 20 mm in diameter, in 29 patients were scanned with 1.25-mm collimation using MDCT (time 1 = T1). During the same session, two additional scans, using identical technique, were obtained through each nodule (T2, T3). Three observers working independently then obtained volumetric measurements using a semiautomated volumetric nodule-sizing software package. Qualitative nodule characterization was also performed. The Bland-Altman method for assessing measurement agreement was used to calculate the 95% limits for agreement for nodule volumes at T1, T2, and T3. RESULTS: Automated nodule segmentation was successful in 438 (97%) of 450 measurements. Forty-three nodules were available for final evaluation. Twenty-six nodules had well-defined edges, and 17 had irregular or spiculated margins. Seventeen were freestanding, 16 were juxtapleural, and 10 were juxtavascular in location. Average nodule volume was 345.5 mm(3) (range, 49.3-1,434 mm(3)). The mean interobserver variability (repeatability) was 0.018% (SD = 0.73%), and the SD of the mean for the three contemporaneous scans (reproducibility) was 13.1% (confidence limits, +/- 25.6%). SD and confidence limits narrowed as volumes increased. CONCLUSION: Volumetric measurements show minimal interobserver variability (0.018%) but an interscan SEM of 13.1% (confidence limits, +/- 25.6%). Repeatability and reproducibility of volumetric measurements are better than those of linear measurements reported in the literature.
Authors: Michael F McNitt-Gray; Samuel G Armato; Charles R Meyer; Anthony P Reeves; Geoffrey McLennan; Richie C Pais; John Freymann; Matthew S Brown; Roger M Engelmann; Peyton H Bland; Gary E Laderach; Chris Piker; Junfeng Guo; Zaid Towfic; David P-Y Qing; David F Yankelevitz; Denise R Aberle; Edwin J R van Beek; Heber MacMahon; Ella A Kazerooni; Barbara Y Croft; Laurence P Clarke Journal: Acad Radiol Date: 2007-12 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: James Y Chen; F Jacob Seagull; Paul Nagy; Paras Lakhani; Elias R Melhem; Eliot L Siegel; Nabile M Safdar Journal: J Digit Imaging Date: 2011-02 Impact factor: 4.056
Authors: M F Rinaldi; T Bartalena; L Braccaioli; N Sverzellati; S Mattioli; E Rimondi; G Rossi; M Zompatori; G Battista; R Canini Journal: Radiol Med Date: 2010-01-15 Impact factor: 3.469
Authors: Patrick A Hein; Valentina C Romano; Patrik Rogalla; Christian Klessen; Alexander Lembcke; Lars Bornemann; Volker Dicken; Bernd Hamm; Hans-Christian Bauknecht Journal: J Digit Imaging Date: 2008-09-05 Impact factor: 4.056