OBJECTIVE: The objective of our study was to measure thyroid volumes using semiautomated 3D CT and to compare the 3D CT volumes with volumes measured using 2D ultrasound, 2D CT, and the water displacement method. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: In 47 patients, 2D ultrasound volumes and 2D CT volumes of the thyroid gland were estimated using the ellipsoid volume formula, and 3D CT volumes were calculated using semiautomated reconstructive techniques. All volume data were compared with thyroid specimen volumes obtained using the water displacement method and were statistically analyzed using the one-way ANOVA, the Pearson correlation coefficient (R), linear regression, and the concordance correlation coefficient (CCC). The processing time of semiautomated 3D CT thyroid volumetry was measured. RESULTS: The paired mean differences ± SD between the three imaging-determined volumes and the specimen volumes were 0.8 ± 3.1 mL for 2D ultrasound, 4.0 ± 4.7 mL for 2D CT, and 0.2 ± 2.5 mL for 3D CT. A significant difference in the mean thyroid volume was found between 2D CT and specimen volumes (p = 0.016) compared with the other pairs (p = 0.937 for 2D ultrasound mean volume vs specimen mean volume, and p = 0.999 for 3D CT mean volume vs specimen mean volume). Between specimen volume and 2D ultrasound volume, specimen volume and 2D CT volume, and specimen volume and 3D CT volume, R values were 0.885, 0.724, and 0.929, respectively, and CCC values were 0.876, 0.598, and 0.925, respectively. The mean processing time of semiautomated 3D CT thyroid volumetry was 7.0 minutes. CONCLUSION: Thyroid volumes measured using 2D ultrasound or semiautomated 3D CT are substantially close to thyroid specimen volumes measured using the water displacement method. Semiautomated 3D CT thyroid volumetry can provide a more reliable measure of thyroid volume than 2D ultrasound.
OBJECTIVE: The objective of our study was to measure thyroid volumes using semiautomated 3D CT and to compare the 3D CT volumes with volumes measured using 2D ultrasound, 2D CT, and the water displacement method. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: In 47 patients, 2D ultrasound volumes and 2D CT volumes of the thyroid gland were estimated using the ellipsoid volume formula, and 3D CT volumes were calculated using semiautomated reconstructive techniques. All volume data were compared with thyroid specimen volumes obtained using the water displacement method and were statistically analyzed using the one-way ANOVA, the Pearson correlation coefficient (R), linear regression, and the concordance correlation coefficient (CCC). The processing time of semiautomated 3D CT thyroid volumetry was measured. RESULTS: The paired mean differences ± SD between the three imaging-determined volumes and the specimen volumes were 0.8 ± 3.1 mL for 2D ultrasound, 4.0 ± 4.7 mL for 2D CT, and 0.2 ± 2.5 mL for 3D CT. A significant difference in the mean thyroid volume was found between 2D CT and specimen volumes (p = 0.016) compared with the other pairs (p = 0.937 for 2D ultrasound mean volume vs specimen mean volume, and p = 0.999 for 3D CT mean volume vs specimen mean volume). Between specimen volume and 2D ultrasound volume, specimen volume and 2D CT volume, and specimen volume and 3D CT volume, R values were 0.885, 0.724, and 0.929, respectively, and CCC values were 0.876, 0.598, and 0.925, respectively. The mean processing time of semiautomated 3D CT thyroid volumetry was 7.0 minutes. CONCLUSION: Thyroid volumes measured using 2D ultrasound or semiautomated 3D CT are substantially close to thyroid specimen volumes measured using the water displacement method. Semiautomated 3D CT thyroid volumetry can provide a more reliable measure of thyroid volume than 2D ultrasound.
Entities:
Keywords:
3D imaging; MDCT; organ volume; thyroid; ultrasound
Authors: Zoë Y G J van Lierop; Sander Jentjens; Monique H M E Anten; Roel Wierts; Connie T Stumpel; Bas Havekes; Marinus J P G van Kroonenburgh Journal: Eur Thyroid J Date: 2018-06-05