OBJECTIVES: To compare the accuracy of pulmonary lobar volumetry using the conventional number of segments method and novel volumetric computer-aided diagnosis using 3D computed tomography images. METHODS: We acquired 50 consecutive preoperative 3D computed tomography examinations for lung tumours reconstructed at 1-mm slice thicknesses. We calculated the lobar volume and the emphysematous lobar volume < -950 HU of each lobe using (i) the slice-by-slice method (reference standard), (ii) number of segments method, and (iii) semi-automatic and (iv) automatic computer-aided diagnosis. We determined Pearson correlation coefficients between the reference standard and the three other methods for lobar volumes and emphysematous lobar volumes. We also compared the relative errors among the three measurement methods. RESULTS: Both semi-automatic and automatic computer-aided diagnosis results were more strongly correlated with the reference standard than the number of segments method. The correlation coefficients for automatic computer-aided diagnosis were slightly lower than those for semi-automatic computer-aided diagnosis because there was one outlier among 50 cases (2%) in the right upper lobe and two outliers among 50 cases (4%) in the other lobes. The number of segments method relative error was significantly greater than those for semi-automatic and automatic computer-aided diagnosis (P < 0.001). The computational time for automatic computer-aided diagnosis was 1/2 to 2/3 than that of semi-automatic computer-aided diagnosis. CONCLUSIONS: A novel lobar volumetry computer-aided diagnosis system could more precisely measure lobar volumes than the conventional number of segments method. Because semi-automatic computer-aided diagnosis and automatic computer-aided diagnosis were complementary, in clinical use, it would be more practical to first measure volumes by automatic computer-aided diagnosis, and then use semi-automatic measurements if automatic computer-aided diagnosis failed.
OBJECTIVES: To compare the accuracy of pulmonary lobar volumetry using the conventional number of segments method and novel volumetric computer-aided diagnosis using 3D computed tomography images. METHODS: We acquired 50 consecutive preoperative 3D computed tomography examinations for lung tumours reconstructed at 1-mm slice thicknesses. We calculated the lobar volume and the emphysematous lobar volume < -950 HU of each lobe using (i) the slice-by-slice method (reference standard), (ii) number of segments method, and (iii) semi-automatic and (iv) automatic computer-aided diagnosis. We determined Pearson correlation coefficients between the reference standard and the three other methods for lobar volumes and emphysematous lobar volumes. We also compared the relative errors among the three measurement methods. RESULTS: Both semi-automatic and automatic computer-aided diagnosis results were more strongly correlated with the reference standard than the number of segments method. The correlation coefficients for automatic computer-aided diagnosis were slightly lower than those for semi-automatic computer-aided diagnosis because there was one outlier among 50 cases (2%) in the right upper lobe and two outliers among 50 cases (4%) in the other lobes. The number of segments method relative error was significantly greater than those for semi-automatic and automatic computer-aided diagnosis (P < 0.001). The computational time for automatic computer-aided diagnosis was 1/2 to 2/3 than that of semi-automatic computer-aided diagnosis. CONCLUSIONS: A novel lobar volumetry computer-aided diagnosis system could more precisely measure lobar volumes than the conventional number of segments method. Because semi-automatic computer-aided diagnosis and automatic computer-aided diagnosis were complementary, in clinical use, it would be more practical to first measure volumes by automatic computer-aided diagnosis, and then use semi-automatic measurements if automatic computer-aided diagnosis failed.
Entities:
Keywords:
Computed tomography; Computer applications; Lobectomy; Lung cancer surgery; Pulmonary function
Authors: Chris T Bolliger; Claudius Gückel; Hermann Engel; Susanne Stöhr; Christoph P Wyser; Andreas Schoetzau; James Habicht; Markus Solèr; Michael Tamm; André P Perruchoud Journal: Respiration Date: 2002 Impact factor: 3.580
Authors: James G Ravenel; William M Leue; Paul J Nietert; James V Miller; Katherine K Taylor; Gerard A Silvestri Journal: Radiology Date: 2008-05 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Jiantao Pu; Bin Zheng; Joseph K Leader; Carl Fuhrman; Friedrich Knollmann; Amy Klym; David Gur Journal: IEEE Trans Med Imaging Date: 2009-07-21 Impact factor: 10.048