OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to assess the accuracy and measurement variability of automated lesion measurement on CT colonography in comparison with manual 2D and 3D techniques under varying scanning conditions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study included phantoms (23 phantom objects) and patients (16 polyps). Measurement with sliding calipers served as the reference for the phantom data. The mean of two independent colonoscopic measurements was the reference for the polyps. The automated measurement was developed for a computer-aided detection scheme, and the size of any detected object was obtained from measurement of its largest diameter. The automated measurement was compared with manual 2D and 3D measurements by two experienced observers. RESULTS: For phantom data, the measurement variability of the automated method was significantly less than that of the two observers (p < 0.05), except for the 3D measurement by observer 1, as follows: automated, 0.86 mm; observer 1, 1.76 mm (2D), 0.96 (3D); observer 2, 1.34 mm (2D), 1.45 mm (3D). The variability of the automated method did not differ significantly from that of manual methods in measurement with patient data. The automated method had a systematic error for phantom data (1.9 mm). CONCLUSION: For phantoms, the automated method has less measurement variability than manual 2D and 3D techniques. For true polyps, the measurement variability of the automated method is comparable with that of manual methods. The automated method does not suffer from intraobserver variability. Because systematic error can be calibrated, automated size measurement may contribute to a practical evaluation strategy.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to assess the accuracy and measurement variability of automated lesion measurement on CT colonography in comparison with manual 2D and 3D techniques under varying scanning conditions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study included phantoms (23 phantom objects) and patients (16 polyps). Measurement with sliding calipers served as the reference for the phantom data. The mean of two independent colonoscopic measurements was the reference for the polyps. The automated measurement was developed for a computer-aided detection scheme, and the size of any detected object was obtained from measurement of its largest diameter. The automated measurement was compared with manual 2D and 3D measurements by two experienced observers. RESULTS: For phantom data, the measurement variability of the automated method was significantly less than that of the two observers (p < 0.05), except for the 3D measurement by observer 1, as follows: automated, 0.86 mm; observer 1, 1.76 mm (2D), 0.96 (3D); observer 2, 1.34 mm (2D), 1.45 mm (3D). The variability of the automated method did not differ significantly from that of manual methods in measurement with patient data. The automated method had a systematic error for phantom data (1.9 mm). CONCLUSION: For phantoms, the automated method has less measurement variability than manual 2D and 3D techniques. For true polyps, the measurement variability of the automated method is comparable with that of manual methods. The automated method does not suffer from intraobserver variability. Because systematic error can be calibrated, automated size measurement may contribute to a practical evaluation strategy.
Authors: Ronald M Summers; Jiamin Liu; Jianhua Yao; Linda Brown; J Richard Choi; Perry J Pickhardt Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2009-11 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Ayso H de Vries; Shandra Bipat; Evelien Dekker; Marjolein H Liedenbaum; Jasper Florie; Paul Fockens; Roel van der Kraan; Elizabeth M Mathus-Vliegen; Johannes B Reitsma; Roel Truyen; Frans M Vos; Aeilko H Zwinderman; Jaap Stoker Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2009-12-22 Impact factor: 5.315