PURPOSE: This study was done to evaluate the variability of semiautomated volume measurements of solid pulmonary nodules between two different versions of the same volumetric software. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The volumes of 100 solid intraparenchymal nodules (mean volume 88.10 mm(3); range 7.36-595.25 mm(3)) studied with the same multidetector computed tomography (MDCT) protocol were determined using two different versions of the same volumetric software (LungCARE 2006G and LungCARE 2007S). The 2006G version is based on a single-segmentation algorithm, whereas the newer version features two algorithms: SmallSizeNodule and AllSizeNodule. The results obtained with the 2006G version were compared with those of the 2007S version with the SmallSizeNodule algorithm, as recommended by the user manual. In addition, we compared the volumetric measurements obtained by the two different algorithms of the 2007S version. RESULTS: The 2006G version and the 2007S version with the SmallSizeNodule algorithm agreed in only two of 100 cases and showed a mean variability of 1.66% (range 0%-8.78%). A more significant volumetric discrepancy was observed between the two different algorithms of the 2007S version, with the AllSizeNodule algorithm providing on average larger volumes (mean variability 71.08%; range 6.02%-218.80%) than SmallSizeNodule. Volume discrepancies were more pronounced in the subgroups of smaller nodules in all comparisons. CONCLUSIONS: There is variability also in the results provided by different versions of the same volumetric software, and this may affect the calculation of the nodule-doubling time. Computer-aided assessment of the growth of lung nodules should always be performed using the same version of volumetric software and the same segmentation algorithm.
PURPOSE: This study was done to evaluate the variability of semiautomated volume measurements of solid pulmonary nodules between two different versions of the same volumetric software. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The volumes of 100 solid intraparenchymal nodules (mean volume 88.10 mm(3); range 7.36-595.25 mm(3)) studied with the same multidetector computed tomography (MDCT) protocol were determined using two different versions of the same volumetric software (LungCARE 2006G and LungCARE 2007S). The 2006G version is based on a single-segmentation algorithm, whereas the newer version features two algorithms: SmallSizeNodule and AllSizeNodule. The results obtained with the 2006G version were compared with those of the 2007S version with the SmallSizeNodule algorithm, as recommended by the user manual. In addition, we compared the volumetric measurements obtained by the two different algorithms of the 2007S version. RESULTS: The 2006G version and the 2007S version with the SmallSizeNodule algorithm agreed in only two of 100 cases and showed a mean variability of 1.66% (range 0%-8.78%). A more significant volumetric discrepancy was observed between the two different algorithms of the 2007S version, with the AllSizeNodule algorithm providing on average larger volumes (mean variability 71.08%; range 6.02%-218.80%) than SmallSizeNodule. Volume discrepancies were more pronounced in the subgroups of smaller nodules in all comparisons. CONCLUSIONS: There is variability also in the results provided by different versions of the same volumetric software, and this may affect the calculation of the nodule-doubling time. Computer-aided assessment of the growth of lung nodules should always be performed using the same version of volumetric software and the same segmentation algorithm.
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: Marco Das; Julia Ley-Zaporozhan; H A Gietema; Andre Czech; Georg Mühlenbruch; Andreas H Mahnken; Markus Katoh; Annemarie Bakai; Marcos Salganicoff; Stefan Diederich; Mathias Prokop; Hans-Ulrich Kauczor; Rolf W Günther; Joachim E Wildberger Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2007-01-06 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Hester A Gietema; Ying Wang; Dongming Xu; Rob J van Klaveren; Harry de Koning; Ernst Scholten; Johny Verschakelen; Gerhard Kohl; Matthijs Oudkerk; Mathias Prokop Journal: Radiology Date: 2006-08-14 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Stefan Diederich; Dag Wormanns; Michael Semik; Michael Thomas; Horst Lenzen; Nikolaus Roos; Walter Heindel Journal: Radiology Date: 2002-03 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Ying Wang; Rob J van Klaveren; Hester J van der Zaag-Loonen; Geertruida H de Bock; Hester A Gietema; Dong Ming Xu; Anne L M Leusveld; Harry J de Koning; Ernst T Scholten; Johny Verschakelen; Mathias Prokop; Matthijs Oudkerk Journal: Radiology Date: 2008-08 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Heidi C Roberts; Demetris Patsios; Narinder S Paul; Maureen McGregor; Gordon Weisbrod; Taebong Chung; Steven Herman; Scott Boerner; Thomas Waddell; Shafique Keshavjee; Gail Darling; Andre Pereira; Ashwini Kale; Hamid Bayanati; Igor Sitartchouk; Ming Tsao; Frances A Shepherd Journal: Can Assoc Radiol J Date: 2007-10 Impact factor: 2.248