OBJECTIVES: Multicentre evaluation of the precision of semi-automatic 2D/3D measurements in comparison to manual, linear measurements of lymph nodes regarding their inter-observer variability in multi-slice CT (MSCT) of patients with lymphoma. METHODS: MSCT data of 63 patients were interpreted before and after chemotherapy by one/two radiologists in five university hospitals. In 307 lymph nodes, short (SAD)/long (LAD) axis diameter and WHO area were determined manually and semi-automatically. Volume was solely calculated semi-automatically. To determine the precision of the individual parameters, a mean was calculated for every lymph node/parameter. Deviation of the measured parameters from this mean was evaluated separately. Statistical analysis entailed intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) and Kruskal-Wallis tests. RESULTS: Median relative deviations of semi-automatic parameters were smaller than deviations of manually assessed parameters, e.g. semi-automatic SAD 5.3 vs. manual 6.5 %. Median variations among different study sites were smaller if the measurement was conducted semi-automatically, e. g. manual LAD 5.7/4.2 % vs. semi-automatic 3.4/3.4 %. Semi-automatic volumetry was superior to the other parameters (2.8 %). CONCLUSIONS: Semi-automatic determination of different lymph node parameters is (compared to manually assessed parameters) associated with a slightly greater precision and a marginally lower inter-observer variability. These results are with regard to the increasing mobility of patients among different medical centres and in relation to the quality management of multicentre trials of importance. KEY POINTS: • In a multicentre setting, semi-automatic measurements are more accurate than manual assessments. • Lymph node volumetry outperforms all other semi-automatically and manually performed measurements. • Use of semi-automatic lymph node analyses can reduce the inter-observer variability.
OBJECTIVES: Multicentre evaluation of the precision of semi-automatic 2D/3D measurements in comparison to manual, linear measurements of lymph nodes regarding their inter-observer variability in multi-slice CT (MSCT) of patients with lymphoma. METHODS: MSCT data of 63 patients were interpreted before and after chemotherapy by one/two radiologists in five university hospitals. In 307 lymph nodes, short (SAD)/long (LAD) axis diameter and WHO area were determined manually and semi-automatically. Volume was solely calculated semi-automatically. To determine the precision of the individual parameters, a mean was calculated for every lymph node/parameter. Deviation of the measured parameters from this mean was evaluated separately. Statistical analysis entailed intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) and Kruskal-Wallis tests. RESULTS: Median relative deviations of semi-automatic parameters were smaller than deviations of manually assessed parameters, e.g. semi-automatic SAD 5.3 vs. manual 6.5 %. Median variations among different study sites were smaller if the measurement was conducted semi-automatically, e. g. manual LAD 5.7/4.2 % vs. semi-automatic 3.4/3.4 %. Semi-automatic volumetry was superior to the other parameters (2.8 %). CONCLUSIONS: Semi-automatic determination of different lymph node parameters is (compared to manually assessed parameters) associated with a slightly greater precision and a marginally lower inter-observer variability. These results are with regard to the increasing mobility of patients among different medical centres and in relation to the quality management of multicentre trials of importance. KEY POINTS: • In a multicentre setting, semi-automatic measurements are more accurate than manual assessments. • Lymph node volumetry outperforms all other semi-automatically and manually performed measurements. • Use of semi-automatic lymph node analyses can reduce the inter-observer variability.
Authors: B D Cheson; S J Horning; B Coiffier; M A Shipp; R I Fisher; J M Connors; T A Lister; J Vose; A Grillo-López; A Hagenbeek; F Cabanillas; D Klippensten; W Hiddemann; R Castellino; N L Harris; J O Armitage; W Carter; R Hoppe; G P Canellos Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 1999-04 Impact factor: 44.544
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: Michael Puesken; Boris Buerke; Joachim Gerss; Barbara Frisch; Florian Beyer; Matthias Weckesser; Harald Seifarth; Walter Heindel; Johannes Wessling Journal: J Comput Assist Tomogr Date: 2010-07 Impact factor: 1.826
Authors: Boris Buerke; Joachim Gerss; Michael Puesken; Matthias Weckesser; Walter Heindel; Johannes Wessling Journal: Acta Radiol Date: 2011-04-06 Impact factor: 1.990
Authors: Boris Buerke; Michael Puesken; Florian Beyer; Joachim Gerss; Matthias Weckesser; Harald Seifarth; Walter Heindel; Johannes Wessling Journal: Invest Radiol Date: 2010-02 Impact factor: 6.016
Authors: M Fabel; H von Tengg-Kobligk; F L Giesel; L Bornemann; V Dicken; A Kopp-Schneider; C Moser; S Delorme; H-U Kauczor Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2008-02-15 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Sarit Assouline; Ralph M Meyer; Claire Infante-Rivard; Joseph M Connors; Andrew Belch; Michael Crump; C Tom Kouroukis; Elizabeth Eisenhauer Journal: Leuk Lymphoma Date: 2007-03
Authors: Paul Flechsig; Peter Choyke; Clemens Kratochwil; Arne Warth; Gerald Antoch; Tim Holland Letz; Daniel Rath; Viktoria Eichwald; Peter E Huber; Hans-Ulrich Kauczor; Uwe Haberkorn; Frederik L Giesel Journal: Diagn Interv Radiol Date: 2016 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 2.630
Authors: Çiğdem Öztürk; Ton Velleman; Alphons H H Bongaerts; L M Bergman; Robert J van Ginkel; Jourik A Gietema; Harald J Hoekstra Journal: PLoS One Date: 2017-01-12 Impact factor: 3.240