OBJECTIVE: To assess inter- and intrascanner variability in volumetry of solid pulmonary nodules in an anthropomorphic thoracic phantom using low-dose CT. METHODS: Five spherical solid artificial nodules [diameters 3, 5, 8, 10 and 12 mm; CT density +100 Hounsfield units (HU)] were randomly placed inside an anthropomorphic thoracic phantom in different combinations. The phantom was examined on two 64-row multidetector CT (64-MDCT) systems (CT-A and CT-B) from different vendors with a low-dose protocol. Each CT examination was performed three times. The CT examinations were evaluated twice by independent blinded observers. Nodule volume was semi-automatically measured by dedicated software. Interscanner variability was evaluated by Bland-Altman analysis and expressed as 95% confidence interval (CI) of relative differences. Intrascanner variability was expressed as 95% CI of relative variation from the mean. RESULTS: No significant difference in CT-derived volume was found between CT-A and CT-B, except for the 3-mm nodules (p<0.05). The 95% CI of interscanner variability was within ±41.6%, ±18.2% and ±4.9% for 3, 5 and ≥8 mm nodules, respectively. The 95% CI of intrascanner variability was within ±28.6%, ±13.4% and ±2.6% for 3, 5 and ≥8 mm nodules, respectively. CONCLUSION: Different 64-MDCT scanners in low-dose settings yield good agreement in volumetry of artificial pulmonary nodules between 5 mm and 12 mm in diameter. Inter- and intrascanner variability decreases at a larger nodule size to a maximum of 4.9% for ≥8 mm nodules. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: The commonly accepted cut-off of 25% to determine nodule growth has the potential to be reduced for ≥8 mm nodules. This offers the possibility of reducing the interval for repeated CT scans in lung cancer screenings.
OBJECTIVE: To assess inter- and intrascanner variability in volumetry of solid pulmonary nodules in an anthropomorphic thoracic phantom using low-dose CT. METHODS: Five spherical solid artificial nodules [diameters 3, 5, 8, 10 and 12 mm; CT density +100 Hounsfield units (HU)] were randomly placed inside an anthropomorphic thoracic phantom in different combinations. The phantom was examined on two 64-row multidetector CT (64-MDCT) systems (CT-A and CT-B) from different vendors with a low-dose protocol. Each CT examination was performed three times. The CT examinations were evaluated twice by independent blinded observers. Nodule volume was semi-automatically measured by dedicated software. Interscanner variability was evaluated by Bland-Altman analysis and expressed as 95% confidence interval (CI) of relative differences. Intrascanner variability was expressed as 95% CI of relative variation from the mean. RESULTS: No significant difference in CT-derived volume was found between CT-A and CT-B, except for the 3-mm nodules (p<0.05). The 95% CI of interscanner variability was within ±41.6%, ±18.2% and ±4.9% for 3, 5 and ≥8 mm nodules, respectively. The 95% CI of intrascanner variability was within ±28.6%, ±13.4% and ±2.6% for 3, 5 and ≥8 mm nodules, respectively. CONCLUSION: Different 64-MDCT scanners in low-dose settings yield good agreement in volumetry of artificial pulmonary nodules between 5 mm and 12 mm in diameter. Inter- and intrascanner variability decreases at a larger nodule size to a maximum of 4.9% for ≥8 mm nodules. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: The commonly accepted cut-off of 25% to determine nodule growth has the potential to be reduced for ≥8 mm nodules. This offers the possibility of reducing the interval for repeated CT scans in lung cancer screenings.
Authors: H Bolte; C Riedel; C Riede; S Müller-Hülsbeck; S Freitag-Wolf; G Kohl; T Drews; M Heller; J Biederer; J Bieder Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2007-06 Impact factor: 3.039
Authors: Dong Ming Xu; Rob J van Klaveren; Geertruida H de Bock; Anne Leusveld; Yingru Zhao; Ying Wang; Rozemarijn Vliegenthart; Harry J de Koning; Ernst T Scholten; Johny Verschakelen; Mathias Prokop; Matthijs Oudkerk Journal: Eur J Radiol Date: 2007-10-24 Impact factor: 3.528
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: Dong Ming Xu; Hester J van der Zaag-Loonen; Matthijs Oudkerk; Ying Wang; Rozemarijn Vliegenthart; Ernst T Scholten; Johny Verschakelen; Mathias Prokop; Harry J de Koning; Rob J van Klaveren Journal: Radiology Date: 2008-11-04 Impact factor: 11.105
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: Hester A Gietema; Cornelia M Schaefer-Prokop; Willem P T M Mali; Gerard Groenewegen; Mathias Prokop Journal: Radiology Date: 2007-10-08 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: 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: 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