PURPOSE: To determine doubling times (DTs) of lung lesions based on volumetric measurements from thin-section CT imaging. METHODS: Previously untreated patients with > or = two thin-section CT scans showing a focal lung lesion were identified. Lesion volumes were derived using direct volume measurements and volume calculations based on lesion area and diameter. Growth rates (GRs) were compared by tissue diagnosis and measurement technique. RESULTS: 54 lesions were evaluated including 8 benign lesions, 10 metastases, 3 lymphomas, 15 adenocarcinomas, 11 squamous carcinomas, and 7 miscellaneous lung cancers. Using direct volume measurements, median DTs were 453, 111, 15, 181, 139 and 137 days, respectively. Lung cancer DTs ranged from 23-2239 days. There were no significant differences in GRs among the different lesion types. There was considerable variability among GRs using different volume determination methods. CONCLUSIONS: Lung cancer doubling times showed a substantial range, and different volume determination methods gave considerably different DTs.
PURPOSE: To determine doubling times (DTs) of lung lesions based on volumetric measurements from thin-section CT imaging. METHODS: Previously untreated patients with > or = two thin-section CT scans showing a focal lung lesion were identified. Lesion volumes were derived using direct volume measurements and volume calculations based on lesion area and diameter. Growth rates (GRs) were compared by tissue diagnosis and measurement technique. RESULTS: 54 lesions were evaluated including 8 benign lesions, 10 metastases, 3 lymphomas, 15 adenocarcinomas, 11 squamous carcinomas, and 7 miscellaneous lung cancers. Using direct volume measurements, median DTs were 453, 111, 15, 181, 139 and 137 days, respectively. Lung cancerDTs ranged from 23-2239 days. There were no significant differences in GRs among the different lesion types. There was considerable variability among GRs using different volume determination methods. CONCLUSIONS: Lung cancer doubling times showed a substantial range, and different volume determination methods gave considerably different DTs.
Authors: Michael M Slattery; Claire Foley; Dermot Kenny; Richard W Costello; P Mark Logan; Michael J Lee Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2012-04-27 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Onno M Mets; Kaman Chung; Pieter Zanen; Ernst T Scholten; Wouter B Veldhuis; Bram van Ginneken; Mathias Prokop; Cornelia M Schaefer-Prokop; Pim A de Jong Journal: Eur Respir J Date: 2018-04-12 Impact factor: 16.671
Authors: David O Wilson; Adam Ryan; Carl Fuhrman; Matthew Schuchert; Steven Shapiro; Jill M Siegfried; Joel Weissfeld Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 2012-01-01 Impact factor: 21.405
Authors: K Marias; D Dionysiou; V Sakkalis; N Graf; R M Bohle; P V Coveney; S Wan; A Folarin; P Büchler; M Reyes; G Clapworthy; E Liu; J Sabczynski; T Bily; A Roniotis; M Tsiknakis; E Kolokotroni; S Giatili; C Veith; E Messe; H Stenzhorn; Yoo-Jin Kim; S Zasada; A N Haidar; C May; S Bauer; T Wang; Y Zhao; M Karasek; R Grewer; A Franz; G Stamatakos Journal: Interface Focus Date: 2011-03-30 Impact factor: 3.906
Authors: Jingbo Wang; Pawinee Mahasittiwat; Ka Kit Wong; Leslie E Quint; Feng-Ming Spring Kong Journal: Lung Cancer Date: 2012-07-28 Impact factor: 5.705