OBJECTIVES: In chemotherapy monitoring, an estimation of the change in tumour size is an important criterion for the assessment of treatment success. This requires a comparison between corresponding lesions in the baseline and follow-up computed tomography (CT) examinations. We evaluate the clinical benefits of an automatic lesion tracking tool that identifies the target lesions in the follow-up CT study and pre-computes the lesion volumes. METHODS: Four radiologists performed volumetric follow-up examinations for 52 patients with and without lesion tracking. In total, 139 lung nodules, liver metastases and lymph nodes were given as target lesions. We measured reading time, inter-reader variability in lesion identification and volume measurements, and the amount of manual adjustments of the segmentation results. RESULTS: With lesion tracking, target lesion assessment time decreased by 38 % or 22 s per lesion. Relative volume difference between readers was reduced from 0.171 to 0.1. Segmentation quality was comparable with and without lesion tracking. CONCLUSIONS: Our automatic lesion tracking tool can make interpretation of follow-up CT examinations quicker and provide results that are less reader-dependent. KEY POINTS: Computed tomography is widely used to follow-up lesions in oncological patients. Novel software automatically identifies and measures target lesions in oncological follow-up examinations. This enables a reduction of target lesion assessment. The automated measurements are less reader-dependent.
OBJECTIVES: In chemotherapy monitoring, an estimation of the change in tumour size is an important criterion for the assessment of treatment success. This requires a comparison between corresponding lesions in the baseline and follow-up computed tomography (CT) examinations. We evaluate the clinical benefits of an automatic lesion tracking tool that identifies the target lesions in the follow-up CT study and pre-computes the lesion volumes. METHODS: Four radiologists performed volumetric follow-up examinations for 52 patients with and without lesion tracking. In total, 139 lung nodules, liver metastases and lymph nodes were given as target lesions. We measured reading time, inter-reader variability in lesion identification and volume measurements, and the amount of manual adjustments of the segmentation results. RESULTS: With lesion tracking, target lesion assessment time decreased by 38 % or 22 s per lesion. Relative volume difference between readers was reduced from 0.171 to 0.1. Segmentation quality was comparable with and without lesion tracking. CONCLUSIONS: Our automatic lesion tracking tool can make interpretation of follow-up CT examinations quicker and provide results that are less reader-dependent. KEY POINTS: Computed tomography is widely used to follow-up lesions in oncological patients. Novel software automatically identifies and measures target lesions in oncological follow-up examinations. This enables a reduction of target lesion assessment. The automated measurements are less reader-dependent.
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
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
Authors: Catherine Beigelman-Aubry; Philippe Raffy; Wenjie Yang; Ronald A Castellino; Philippe A Grenier Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2007-10 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Cheng Tao; David S Gierada; Fang Zhu; Thomas K Pilgram; Jin Hong Wang; Kyongtae T Bae Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2009-03 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Patrick A Hein; Valentina C Romano; Patrik Rogalla; Christian Klessen; Alexander Lembcke; Lars Bornemann; Volker Dicken; Bernd Hamm; Hans-Christian Bauknecht Journal: J Digit Imaging Date: 2008-09-05 Impact factor: 4.056
Authors: E A Eisenhauer; P Therasse; J Bogaerts; L H Schwartz; D Sargent; R Ford; J Dancey; S Arbuck; S Gwyther; M Mooney; L Rubinstein; L Shankar; L Dodd; R Kaplan; D Lacombe; J Verweij Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 2009-01 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: Thomas Baum; Jan S Bauer; Tobias Klinder; Martin Dobritz; Ernst J Rummeny; Peter B Noël; Cristian Lorenz Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2014-01-15 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: M Catherine Pietanza; Ethan M Basch; Alex Lash; Lawrence H Schwartz; Michelle S Ginsberg; Binsheng Zhao; Marwan Shouery; Mary Shaw; Lauren J Rogak; Manda Wilson; Aaron Gabow; Marcia Latif; Kai-Hsiung Lin; Qinfei Wu; Samantha L Kass; Claire P Miller; Leslie Tyson; Dyana K Sumner; Alison Berkowitz-Hergianto; Camelia S Sima; Mark G Kris Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2013-04-29 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Petr Martynov; Nikolai Mitropolskii; Katri Kukkola; Monika Gretsch; Vesa-Matti Koivisto; Ilkka Lindgren; Jani Saunavaara; Jarmo Reponen; Anssi Mäkynen Journal: BMC Med Imaging Date: 2017-12-11 Impact factor: 1.930