Literature DB >> 19107487

Automated measurement of lymph nodes: a phantom study.

Sebastian Keil1, Cedric Plumhans, Florian F Behrendt, Sven Stanzel, Michael Suehling, Georg Mühlenbruch, Andreas H Mahnken, Rolf W Günther, Marco Das.   

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to assess the accuracy of automated nodal quantification in a phantom. MDCT of a phantom with 17 synthetic lymph nodes of different sizes (diameter 6.0-30.0 mm) was performed at varying tube currents, reconstruction kernels and slice thicknesses. RECIST diameter and volume were measured using an automated software tool. Results were compared with the reference diameter and volume by calculating the absolute percentage error (APE). Degree of agreement between software and reference measurements was evaluated by computing corresponding concordance correlation coefficients (CCC). Under varying tube currents the mean APE (CCC) varied between 5.18% and 10.12% (0.95-0.99) for RECIST diameter and between 7.22% and 16.21% (0.94-1.00) for the volume. At different reconstruction kernels the mean APE values ranged between 7.20% and 7.55% (0.99) (RECIST) and between 8.96% and 14.42% (1.00) (volume). With different slice thicknesses the mean APE values differed from 5.81% to 9.20% (0.97-0.99) (RECIST) and from 8.16% to 22.66% (0.99-1.00) (volume). Regarding RECIST criteria and volume, automated evaluation of lymph nodes in a phantom demonstrated a high accuracy under varying MDCT parameters.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 19107487     DOI: 10.1007/s00330-008-1254-9

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur Radiol        ISSN: 0938-7994            Impact factor:   5.315


  17 in total

1.  New guidelines to evaluate the response to treatment in solid tumors. European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer, National Cancer Institute of the United States, National Cancer Institute of Canada.

Authors:  P Therasse; S G Arbuck; E A Eisenhauer; J Wanders; R S Kaplan; L Rubinstein; J Verweij; M Van Glabbeke; A T van Oosterom; M C Christian; S G Gwyther
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2000-02-02       Impact factor: 13.506

2.  Small pulmonary nodules: volume measurement at chest CT--phantom study.

Authors:  Jane P Ko; Henry Rusinek; Erika L Jacobs; James S Babb; Margrit Betke; Georgeann McGuinness; David P Naidich
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2003-09       Impact factor: 11.105

Review 3.  Lymph node diagnosis in oncologic imaging: a dilemma still waiting to be solved.

Authors:  W A Golder
Journal:  Onkologie       Date:  2004-04

Review 4.  Imaging of the lymphatic system: new horizons.

Authors:  Tristan Barrett; Peter L Choyke; Hisataka Kobayashi
Journal:  Contrast Media Mol Imaging       Date:  2006 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 3.161

Review 5.  Imaging in staging of malignant lymphoma: a systematic review.

Authors:  Thomas C Kwee; Robert M Kwee; Rutger A J Nievelstein
Journal:  Blood       Date:  2007-10-04       Impact factor: 22.113

6.  Automated volumetry of solid pulmonary nodules in a phantom: accuracy across different CT scanner technologies.

Authors:  Marco Das; Georg Mühlenbruch; Markus Katoh; Annemarie Bakai; Marcos Salganicoff; Sven Stanzel; Andreas H Mahnken; Rolf W Günther; Joachim E Wildberger
Journal:  Invest Radiol       Date:  2007-05       Impact factor: 6.016

7.  A concordance correlation coefficient to evaluate reproducibility.

Authors:  L I Lin
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  1989-03       Impact factor: 2.571

8.  Small pulmonary nodules: evaluation with repeat CT--preliminary experience.

Authors:  D F Yankelevitz; R Gupta; B Zhao; C I Henschke
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  1999-08       Impact factor: 11.105

9.  Semi-automated volumetric analysis of lymph node metastases in patients with malignant melanoma stage III/IV--a feasibility study.

Authors:  M Fabel; H von Tengg-Kobligk; F L Giesel; L Bornemann; V Dicken; A Kopp-Schneider; C Moser; S Delorme; H-U Kauczor
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2008-02-15       Impact factor: 5.315

10.  [Follow-up CT measurement of liver malignoma according to RECIST and WHO vs. volumetry].

Authors:  C P Heussel; S Meier; S Wittelsberger; H Götte; P Mildenberger; H-U Kauczor
Journal:  Rofo       Date:  2007-06-26
View more
  3 in total

1.  Semi-automated volumetric analysis of lymph node metastases during follow-up--initial results.

Authors:  Michael Fabel; H Bolte; H von Tengg-Kobligk; L Bornemann; V Dicken; S Delorme; H-U Kauczor; M Heller; J Biederer
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2010-10-17       Impact factor: 5.315

2.  Intra- and inter-observer variability in measurement of target lesions: implication on response evaluation according to RECIST 1.1.

Authors:  Daniela Muenzel; Heinz-Peter Engels; Melanie Bruegel; Victoria Kehl; Ernst J Rummeny; Stephan Metz
Journal:  Radiol Oncol       Date:  2012-01-02       Impact factor: 2.991

3.  Preclinical multimodality phantom design for quality assurance of tumor size measurement.

Authors:  Yongsook C Lee; Gary D Fullerton; Cristel Baiu; Margaret G Lescrenier; Beth A Goins
Journal:  BMC Med Phys       Date:  2011-09-30
  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.