OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to investigate the interobserver variability of CT based diameter and volumetric measurements of artificial pulmonary nodules. A special interest was the consideration of different measurement methods, observer experience and training levels. MATERIALS AND METHODS: For this purpose 46 artificial small solid nodules were examined in a dedicated ex-vivo chest phantom with multislice-spiral CT (20 mAs, 120 kV, collimation 16 mm x 0.75 mm, table feed 15 mm, reconstructed slice thickness 1mm, reconstruction increment 0.7 mm, intermediate reconstruction kernel). Two observer groups of different radiologic experience (0 and more than 5 years of training, 3 observers each) analysed all lesions with digital callipers and 2 volumetry software packages (click-point depending and robust volumetry) in a semi-automatic and manually corrected mode. For data analysis the variation coefficient (VC) was calculated in per cent for each group and a Wilcoxon test was used for analytic statistics. RESULTS: Click-point robust volumetry showed with a VC of <0.01% in both groups the smallest interobserver variability. Between experienced and un-experienced observers interobserver variability was significantly different for diameter measurements (p=0.023) but not for semi-automatic and manual corrected volumetry. A significant training effect was revealed for diameter measurements (p=0.003) and semi-automatic measurements of click-point depending volumetry (p=0.007) in the un-experienced observer group. CONCLUSIONS: Compared to diameter measurements volumetry achieves a significantly smaller interobserver variance and advanced volumetry algorithms are independent of observer experience.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to investigate the interobserver variability of CT based diameter and volumetric measurements of artificial pulmonary nodules. A special interest was the consideration of different measurement methods, observer experience and training levels. MATERIALS AND METHODS: For this purpose 46 artificial small solid nodules were examined in a dedicated ex-vivo chest phantom with multislice-spiral CT (20 mAs, 120 kV, collimation 16 mm x 0.75 mm, table feed 15 mm, reconstructed slice thickness 1mm, reconstruction increment 0.7 mm, intermediate reconstruction kernel). Two observer groups of different radiologic experience (0 and more than 5 years of training, 3 observers each) analysed all lesions with digital callipers and 2 volumetry software packages (click-point depending and robust volumetry) in a semi-automatic and manually corrected mode. For data analysis the variation coefficient (VC) was calculated in per cent for each group and a Wilcoxon test was used for analytic statistics. RESULTS: Click-point robust volumetry showed with a VC of <0.01% in both groups the smallest interobserver variability. Between experienced and un-experienced observers interobserver variability was significantly different for diameter measurements (p=0.023) but not for semi-automatic and manual corrected volumetry. A significant training effect was revealed for diameter measurements (p=0.003) and semi-automatic measurements of click-point depending volumetry (p=0.007) in the un-experienced observer group. CONCLUSIONS: Compared to diameter measurements volumetry achieves a significantly smaller interobserver variance and advanced volumetry algorithms are independent of observer experience.
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
Authors: Marga B Rominger; Daphne Fournell; Beenarose Thanka Nadar; Sarah N M Behrens; Jens H Figiel; Boris Keil; Johannes T Heverhagen Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2009-01-22 Impact factor: 5.315
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
Authors: P David Mozley; Claus Bendtsen; Binsheng Zhao; Lawrence H Schwartz; Matthias Thorn; Yuanxin Rong; Luduan Zhang; Andrea Perrone; René Korn; Andrew J Buckler Journal: Transl Oncol Date: 2012-02-01 Impact factor: 4.243
Authors: Erich P Huang; Xiao-Feng Wang; Kingshuk Roy Choudhury; Lisa M McShane; Mithat Gönen; Jingjing Ye; Andrew J Buckler; Paul E Kinahan; Anthony P Reeves; Edward F Jackson; Alexander R Guimaraes; Gudrun Zahlmann Journal: Stat Methods Med Res Date: 2014-05-28 Impact factor: 3.021
Authors: Andrea Schaefer; Yoo Jin Kim; Stephanie Kremp; Sebastian Mai; Jochen Fleckenstein; Hendrik Bohnenberger; Hans-Joachim Schäfers; Jan-Martin Kuhnigk; Rainer M Bohle; Christian Rübe; Carl-Martin Kirsch; Aleksandar Grgic Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2013-04-30 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: K J Hughes; E H Laidlaw; S M Reed; J Keen; J B Abbott; T Trevail; G Hammond; T D H Parkin; S Love Journal: J Vet Intern Med Date: 2014 Nov-Dec Impact factor: 3.333