Paul J Nietert1, James G Ravenel2, William M Leue3, James V Miller3, Katherine K Taylor4, Elizabeth S Garrett-Mayer5, Gerard A Silvestri4. 1. Department of Biostatistics, Bioinformatics, and Epidemiology, Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC. Electronic address: nieterpj@musc.edu. 2. Department of Radiology, Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC. 3. General Electric Global Research, Niskayuna, NY. 4. Department of Medicine, Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC. 5. Department of Biostatistics, Bioinformatics, and Epidemiology, Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Detection of small indeterminate pulmonary nodules (4 to 10 mm in diameter) in clinical practice is increasing, largely because of increased utilization and improved imaging technology. Although there currently exists software for CT scan machines that automate nodule volume estimation, the imprecision associated with volume estimates is particularly poor for nodules < or = 6 mm in diameter, with greater imprecision associated with increasing CT scan slice thickness. This study examined the effects of the volume estimation error associated with four CT scan slice thicknesses (0.625, 1.25, 2.50, and 5.00 mm) on estimates of volume doubling time (VDT) for solid nodules of various sizes. METHODS: Data reflecting the accuracy of 1,624 automated volume estimations were obtained from experiments incorporating volume estimation software, performed on a commercially available lung phantom. These data informed mathematical simulations that were used to estimate imprecision around VDT estimates for hypothetical pairs of volume estimates for a given solid pulmonary nodule observed at different time points. RESULTS: The confidence intervals around the VDT estimates were extremely wide for 2.50- and 5.00-mm slice thicknesses, often encompassing values traditionally associated with both benignity and malignity for simulated 1- and 2-mm growths in diameter. CONCLUSIONS: Because of the inaccuracy in automated volume estimation, the confidence a clinician should have in estimating VDT should be highly dependent on the degree of observed growth and on the CT scan slice thickness. The performance of CT scanners with slice thicknesses of > or = 2.5 mm for assessing growth in pulmonary nodules is essentially inadequate for 1-mm changes in nodule diameter.
BACKGROUND: Detection of small indeterminate pulmonary nodules (4 to 10 mm in diameter) in clinical practice is increasing, largely because of increased utilization and improved imaging technology. Although there currently exists software for CT scan machines that automate nodule volume estimation, the imprecision associated with volume estimates is particularly poor for nodules < or = 6 mm in diameter, with greater imprecision associated with increasing CT scan slice thickness. This study examined the effects of the volume estimation error associated with four CT scan slice thicknesses (0.625, 1.25, 2.50, and 5.00 mm) on estimates of volume doubling time (VDT) for solid nodules of various sizes. METHODS: Data reflecting the accuracy of 1,624 automated volume estimations were obtained from experiments incorporating volume estimation software, performed on a commercially available lung phantom. These data informed mathematical simulations that were used to estimate imprecision around VDT estimates for hypothetical pairs of volume estimates for a given solid pulmonary nodule observed at different time points. RESULTS: The confidence intervals around the VDT estimates were extremely wide for 2.50- and 5.00-mm slice thicknesses, often encompassing values traditionally associated with both benignity and malignity for simulated 1- and 2-mm growths in diameter. CONCLUSIONS: Because of the inaccuracy in automated volume estimation, the confidence a clinician should have in estimating VDT should be highly dependent on the degree of observed growth and on the CT scan slice thickness. The performance of CT scanners with slice thicknesses of > or = 2.5 mm for assessing growth in pulmonary nodules is essentially inadequate for 1-mm changes in nodule diameter.
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
Authors: Dag Wormanns; Gerhard Kohl; Ernst Klotz; Anke Marheine; Florian Beyer; Walter Heindel; Stefan Diederich Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2003-11-13 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Heber MacMahon; John H M Austin; Gordon Gamsu; Christian J Herold; James R Jett; David P Naidich; Edward F Patz; Stephen J Swensen Journal: Radiology Date: 2005-11 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Jane P Ko; Rachel Marcus; Elan Bomsztyk; James S Babb; Cornel Stefanescu; Manmeen Kaur; David P Naidich; Henry Rusinek Journal: Radiology Date: 2006-04 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Rebecca M Lindell; Thomas E Hartman; Stephen J Swensen; James R Jett; David E Midthun; Henry D Tazelaar; Jayawant N Mandrekar Journal: Radiology Date: 2007-02 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Binsheng Zhao; Lawrence H Schwartz; Chaya S Moskowitz; Liang Wang; Michelle S Ginsberg; Cathleen A Cooper; Li Jiang; John P Kalaigian Journal: Radiology Date: 2005-01-28 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Marjolein A Heuvelmans; Matthijs Oudkerk; Geertruida H de Bock; Harry J de Koning; Xueqian Xie; Peter M A van Ooijen; Marcel J W Greuter; Pim A de Jong; Harry J M Groen; Rozemarijn Vliegenthart Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2013-03-19 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Chara E Rydzak; Samuel G Armato; Ricardo S Avila; James L Mulshine; David F Yankelevitz; David S Gierada Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2017-10-27 Impact factor: 3.039
Authors: Andrew J Buckler; Jovanna Danagoulian; Kjell Johnson; Adele Peskin; Marios A Gavrielides; Nicholas Petrick; Nancy A Obuchowski; Hubert Beaumont; Lubomir Hadjiiski; Rudresh Jarecha; Jan-Martin Kuhnigk; Ninad Mantri; Michael McNitt-Gray; Jan H Moltz; Gergely Nyiri; Sam Peterson; Pierre Tervé; Christian Tietjen; Etienne von Lavante; Xiaonan Ma; Samantha St Pierre; Maria Athelogou Journal: Acad Radiol Date: 2015-09-14 Impact factor: 3.173
Authors: Jane P Ko; Erika J Berman; Manmeen Kaur; James S Babb; Elan Bomsztyk; Alissa K Greenberg; David P Naidich; Henry Rusinek Journal: Radiology Date: 2011-12-09 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Michael K Gould; Jessica Donington; William R Lynch; Peter J Mazzone; David E Midthun; David P Naidich; Renda Soylemez Wiener Journal: Chest Date: 2013-05 Impact factor: 9.410
Authors: Gary T Smith; Ahmad R Rahman; Ming Li; Brandon Moore; Hester Gietema; Giulia Veronesi; Pierre P Massion; Ronald C Walker Journal: PLoS One Date: 2015-09-17 Impact factor: 3.240