Literature DB >> 29056601

Disagreement of diameter and volume measurements for pulmonary nodule size estimation in CT lung cancer screening.

Marjolein A Heuvelmans1, Joan E Walter1, Rozemarijn Vliegenthart1, Peter M A van Ooijen1, Geertruida H De Bock2, Harry J de Koning3, Matthijs Oudkerk1.   

Abstract

We studied 2240 indeterminate solid nodules (volume 50-500mm3) to determine the correlation of diameter and semi-automated volume measurements for pulmonary nodule size estimation. Intra-nodular diameter variation, defined as maximum minus minimum diameter through the nodule's center, varied by 2.8 mm (median, IQR:2.2-3.7 mm), so above the 1.5 mm cutoff for nodule growth used in Lung CT Screening Reporting and Data System (Lung-RADS). Using mean or maximum axial diameter to assess nodule volume led to a substantial mean overestimation of nodule volume of 47.2% and 85.1%, respectively, compared to semi-automated volume. Thus, size of indeterminate nodules is poorly represented by diameter. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Pre-results, ISRCTN63545820. © Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2018. All rights reserved. No commercial use is permitted unless otherwise expressly granted.

Entities:  

Keywords:  imaging/CT MRI etc; lung cancer

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 29056601     DOI: 10.1136/thoraxjnl-2017-210770

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Thorax        ISSN: 0040-6376            Impact factor:   9.139


  21 in total

1.  Pulmonary nodules measurements in CT lung cancer screening.

Authors:  Marjolein A Heuvelmans; Matthijs Oudkerk
Journal:  J Thorac Dis       Date:  2018-06       Impact factor: 2.895

2.  Insights for Management of Ground-Glass Opacities From the National Lung Screening Trial.

Authors:  Hilary A Robbins; Hormuzd A Katki; Li C Cheung; Rebecca Landy; Christine D Berg
Journal:  J Thorac Oncol       Date:  2019-05-22       Impact factor: 15.609

3.  2D or 3D measurements of pulmonary nodules: preliminary answers and more open questions.

Authors:  Constance de Margerie-Mellon; Benedikt H Heidinger; Alexander A Bankier
Journal:  J Thorac Dis       Date:  2018-02       Impact factor: 2.895

4.  Current perspectives for the size measurement of screening-detected lung nodules.

Authors:  Hyungjin Kim; Chang Min Park
Journal:  J Thorac Dis       Date:  2018-03       Impact factor: 2.895

5.  Lung cancer screening: tell me more about post-test risk.

Authors:  Mario Silva; Gianluca Milanese; Ugo Pastorino; Nicola Sverzellati
Journal:  J Thorac Dis       Date:  2019-09       Impact factor: 2.895

Review 6.  Lung cancer screening: nodule identification and characterization.

Authors:  Ioannis Vlahos; Konstantinos Stefanidis; Sarah Sheard; Arjun Nair; Charles Sayer; Joanne Moser
Journal:  Transl Lung Cancer Res       Date:  2018-06

Review 7.  Lung cancer LDCT screening and mortality reduction - evidence, pitfalls and future perspectives.

Authors:  Matthijs Oudkerk; ShiYuan Liu; Marjolein A Heuvelmans; Joan E Walter; John K Field
Journal:  Nat Rev Clin Oncol       Date:  2020-10-12       Impact factor: 66.675

Review 8.  Low-Dose CT Screening for Lung Cancer: Evidence from 2 Decades of Study.

Authors:  David S Gierada; William C Black; Caroline Chiles; Paul F Pinsky; David F Yankelevitz
Journal:  Radiol Imaging Cancer       Date:  2020-03-27

9.  Ten-year results of the Multicentric Italian Lung Detection trial demonstrate the safety and efficacy of biennial lung cancer screening.

Authors:  U Pastorino; N Sverzellati; S Sestini; M Silva; F Sabia; M Boeri; A Cantarutti; G Sozzi; G Corrao; A Marchianò
Journal:  Eur J Cancer       Date:  2019-07-20       Impact factor: 9.162

Review 10.  Identification of Tumor-Specific MRI Biomarkers Using Machine Learning (ML).

Authors:  Rima Hajjo; Dima A Sabbah; Sanaa K Bardaweel; Alexander Tropsha
Journal:  Diagnostics (Basel)       Date:  2021-04-21
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.