Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Comparison of manual and semi-automatic measuring techniques in MSCT scans of patients with lymphoma: a multicentre study

  • Oncology
  • Published:
European Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

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/tworadiologists 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-automaticallyand manually performed measurements.

• Use of semi-automatic lymph node analyses can reduce the inter-observer variability.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig.1
Fig.2
Fig. 3
Fig.4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Eisenhauer EA, Therasse P, Bogaerts J etal (2009) New response evaluation criteria in solid tumours: revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1). Eur J Cancer 45:228–247

  2. Cheson B, Horning SJ, Coiffier B etal (1999) Report of an international workshop to standardize response criteria for non-Hodgkin’s lymphomas. NCI Sponsored International Working Group. J Clin Oncol 17:1244–1253

  3. Assouline S, Meyer RM, Infante-Rivard C etal (2007) Development of adapted RECIST criteria to assess response in lymphoma and their comparison to the International Workshop Criteria. Leuk Lymphoma 48:513–520

  4. Jaffe TA, Wickersham NW, Sullivan DC (2010) Quantitative imaging in oncology patients: Part 1, radiology practice patterns at major US cancer centers. AJR Am J Roentgenol 195:101–106

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. van Persijn, van Meerten EL, Gelderblom H, Bloem JL (2010) RECIST revised: implications for the radiologist. A review article on the modified RECIST guideline. Eur Radiol 20:1456–1467

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Miller AB, Hoogstraten B, Staguet M, Winkler A (1981) Reporting results of cancer treatment. Cancer 47:207–214

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Weßling J, Puesken M, Koch R etal (2012) MSCT follow-up in malignant lymphoma: comparison of manual linear measurements with semi-automated lymph node analysis for therapy response classification. Röfo 184:795–804

  8. Buerke B, Gerss J, Puesken M, Weckesser M, Heindel W, Wessling J (2011) Usefulness of semi-automatic volumetry compared to established linear measurements in predicting lymph node metastases in MSCT. Acta Radiol 52:540–546

  9. Buerke B, Puesken M, Müter S etal (2010) Measurement accuracy and reproducibility of semiautomated metric and volumetric lymph node analysis in MDCT. AJR Am J Roentgenol 195:979–985

  10. Buerke B, Puesken M, Beyer F etal (2010) Semiautomatic lymph node segmentation in multislice computed tomography: impact of slice thickness on segmentation quality, measurement precision, and interobserver variability. Investig Radiol 45:82–88

  11. Kuhnigk JM, Dicken V, Bornemann L etal (2006) Morphological segmentation and partial volume analysis for volumetry of solid pulmonary lesions in thoracic CT. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 25:417–434

  12. James K, Eisenhauer E, Christian M etal (1999) Measuring response in solid tumors: unidimensional versus bidimensional measurement. J Natl Cancer Inst 91:523–528

  13. Fabel M, von Tengg-Kobligk H, Giesel FL etal (2008) Semi-automated volumetric analysis of lymph node metastases in patients with malignant melanoma stage III/IV – a feasibility study. Eur Radiol 18:1114–1122

  14. Zhao B, Schwartz LH, Moskowitz CS, Ginsberg MS, Rizvi NA, Kris MG (2006) Lung cancer: computerized quantification of tumor response – initial results. Radiology 241:892–898

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Jaffe TA, Wickersham NW, Sullivan DC (2010) Quantitative imaging in oncology patients: Part 2, oncologists’ opinions and expectations at major US cancer centers. AJR Am J Roentgenol 195:W19–W30

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Wulff AM, Bolte H, Fischer S etal (2012) Lung, liver and lymph node metastases in follow-up MSCT: comprehensive volumetric assessment of lesion size changes. Röfo 184:820–828

  17. Quantitative Imaging Biomarkers Alliance (QIBA) of the Radiological Society of North America (RSNA) (2007) QIBA Mission. Radiological Society of North America (RSNA), Oak Brook (IL), USA. Available via http://rsna.org/QIBA.aspx. Accessed 15 Nov 2013

  18. Puesken M, Buerke B, Gerss J etal (2010) Prediction of lymph node manifestations in malignant lymphoma: significant role of volumetric compared with established metric lymph node analysis in multislice computed tomography. J Comput Assist Tomogr 34:564–569

  19. Cortes J, Rodriguez J, Diaz-Gonzalez JA etal (2002) Comparison of unidimensional and bidimensional measurements in metastatic non-small cell lung cancer. Br J Cancer 87:158–160

  20. Frank R, Hargreaves R (2003) Clinical biomarkers in drug discovery and development. Nat Rev Drug Discov 2:566–580

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Wormanns D, Kohl G, Klotz E etal (2004) Volumetric measurements of pulmonary nodules at multi-row detector CT: invivo reproducibility. Eur Radiol 14:86–92

  22. McErlean A, Panicek DM, Zabor EC etal (2013) Intra- and interobserver variability in CT measurements in oncology. Radiology 269:451–459

  23. Clarke LP, Croft BS, Nordstrom R, Zhang H, Kelloff G, Tatum J (2009) Quantitative imaging for evaluation of response to cancer therapy. Transl Oncol 2:195–197

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Quantitative Imaging Network (QIN) of the National Cancer Institute (NCI) (2011) Quantitative imaging for evaluation of responses to cancer therapies (U01). Available via http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/pa-files/PAR-08-225.html. Accessed 15 Nov 2013

Download references

Acknowledgments

The scientific guarantor of this publication is Dr. Boris Buerke, MD, PhD. The authors of this manuscript declare no relationships with any companies whose products or services may be related to the subject matter of the article. The authors state that this work has not received any funding. One of the authors (Dr. Raphael Koch) has significant statistical expertise. Institutional review board approval was obtained. Written informed consent was obtained from all subjects (patients) in this study. Some study subjects or cohorts have been previously reported in one published paper and one paper under review.

Methodology: retrospective, multicenter study

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Clinical Radiology, University Hospital Münster, Albert-Schweitzer-Campus 1 (Building: A1), 48149, Münster, Germany

    A. J. Höink, J. Weßling, C. Schülke, N. Kohlhase, L. Wassenaar, W. Heindel & B. Buerke

  2. Institute of Biostatistics and Clinical Research (IBKF), University of Münster, Münster, Germany

    R. Koch

  3. Department of Haematology and Oncology, University Hospital Münster, Münster, Germany

    R. M. Mesters

  4. Institute of Clinical Radiology, University Hospital München (LMU), München, Germany

    M. D’Anastasi, A. Graser & M. Karpitschka

  5. Department of Clinical Radiology, University Hospital Kiel, Kiel, Germany

    M. Fabel & A. Wulff

  6. Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital Mainz, Mainz, Germany

    D. Pinto dos Santos

  7. Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital Marburg, Marburg, Germany

    A. Kießling

  8. Fraunhofer MeVis, Institute of Medical Imaging Computing, Bremen, Germany

    V. Dicken & L. Bornemann

Authors
  1. A. J. Höink
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. J. Weßling
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. R. Koch
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. C. Schülke
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. N. Kohlhase
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. L. Wassenaar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. R. M. Mesters
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. M. D’Anastasi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. M. Fabel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. A. Wulff
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. D. Pinto dos Santos
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. A. Kießling
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  13. A. Graser
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  14. V. Dicken
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  15. M. Karpitschka
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  16. L. Bornemann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  17. W. Heindel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  18. B. Buerke
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to A. J. Höink.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Höink, A.J., Weßling, J., Koch, R. et al. Comparison of manual and semi-automatic measuring techniques in MSCT scans of patients with lymphoma: a multicentre study. Eur Radiol 24, 2709–2718 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-014-3283-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-014-3283-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation