Marios A Gavrielides1, Qin Li2, Rongping Zeng2, Benjamin Paul Berman3, Berkman Sahiner2, Qi Gong2, Kyle J Myers2, Gino DeFilippo2, Nicholas Petrick2. 1. Division of Imaging, Diagnostics, and Software Reliability, Office of Science and Engineering Laboratories, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Avenue, Building 62, RM 4126, Silver Spring, MD. Electronic address: marios.gavrielides@fda.hhs.gov. 2. Division of Imaging, Diagnostics, and Software Reliability, Office of Science and Engineering Laboratories, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Avenue, Building 62, RM 4126, Silver Spring, MD. 3. Division of Radiological Health, Office of In Vitro Diagnostics and Radiological Health, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, Maryland.
Abstract
RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: The quantitative assessment of volumetric CT for discriminating small changes in nodule size has been under-examined. This phantom study examined the effect of imaging protocol, nodule size, and measurement method on volume-based change discrimination across low and high object to background contrast tasks. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eight spherical objects ranging in diameter from 5.0 mm to 5.75 mm and 8.0 mm to 8.75 mm with 0.25 mm increments were scanned within an anthropomorphic phantom with either foam-background (high-contrast task, ∼1000 HU object to background difference)) or gelatin-background (low-contrast task, ∼50 to 100 HU difference). Ten repeat acquisitions were collected for each protocol with varying exposures, reconstructed slice thicknesses and reconstruction kernels. Volume measurements were obtained using a matched-filter approach (MF) and a publicly available 3D segmentation-based tool (SB). Discrimination of nodule sizes was assessed using the area under the ROC curve (AUC). RESULTS: Using a low-dose (1.3 mGy), thin-slice (≤1.5 mm) protocol, changes of 0.25 mm in diameter were detected with AU = 1.0 for all baseline sizes for the high-contrast task regardless of measurement method. For the more challenging low-contrast task and same protocol, MF detected changes of 0.25 mm from baseline sizes ≥5.25 mm and volume changes ≥9.4% with AUC≥0.81 whereas corresponding results for SB were poor (AUC within 0.49-0.60). Performance for SB was improved, but still inconsistent, when exposure was increased to 4.4 mGy. CONCLUSION: The reliable discrimination of small changes in pulmonary nodule size with low-dose, thin-slice CT protocols suitable for lung cancer screening was dependent on the inter-related effects of nodule to background contrast and measurement method. Published by Elsevier Inc.
RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: The quantitative assessment of volumetric CT for discriminating small changes in nodule size has been under-examined. This phantom study examined the effect of imaging protocol, nodule size, and measurement method on volume-based change discrimination across low and high object to background contrast tasks. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eight spherical objects ranging in diameter from 5.0 mm to 5.75 mm and 8.0 mm to 8.75 mm with 0.25 mm increments were scanned within an anthropomorphic phantom with either foam-background (high-contrast task, ∼1000 HU object to background difference)) or gelatin-background (low-contrast task, ∼50 to 100 HU difference). Ten repeat acquisitions were collected for each protocol with varying exposures, reconstructed slice thicknesses and reconstruction kernels. Volume measurements were obtained using a matched-filter approach (MF) and a publicly available 3D segmentation-based tool (SB). Discrimination of nodule sizes was assessed using the area under the ROC curve (AUC). RESULTS: Using a low-dose (1.3 mGy), thin-slice (≤1.5 mm) protocol, changes of 0.25 mm in diameter were detected with AU = 1.0 for all baseline sizes for the high-contrast task regardless of measurement method. For the more challenging low-contrast task and same protocol, MF detected changes of 0.25 mm from baseline sizes ≥5.25 mm and volume changes ≥9.4% with AUC≥0.81 whereas corresponding results for SB were poor (AUC within 0.49-0.60). Performance for SB was improved, but still inconsistent, when exposure was increased to 4.4 mGy. CONCLUSION: The reliable discrimination of small changes in pulmonary nodule size with low-dose, thin-slice CT protocols suitable for lung cancer screening was dependent on the inter-related effects of nodule to background contrast and measurement method. Published by Elsevier Inc.