Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Volumetric evaluation of hepatic tumors: multi-vendor, multi-reader liver phantom study

  • Published:
Abdominal Imaging Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

To compare liver lesion volume measurement on multiple 3D software platforms using a liver phantom.

Methods

An anthropomorphic phantom constructed with ten liver lesions of varying size, attenuation, and shape with known volume and long axis measurement was scanned (120 kVp, 80–440 smart mA, NI 12). DICOM data were uploaded to five commercially available 3D visualization systems and manual tumor volume was obtained by three-independent readers. Accuracy and reproducibility of linear and volume measurements were compared. The two most promising systems were then compared with an additional prototype system by two readers using both manual and semi-automated measurement with similar comparison between linear and volume measures. Measurements were performed on 5- and 1.25-mm data sets. Inter- and intra-observer variability was also assessed.

Results

Overall mean % volume error on the five commercially available software systems (averaging all ten liver lesions among all three readers) was 8.0% ± 7.5%, 13.7% ± 11.2%, 14.2% ± 15.2%, 16.4% ± 14.8 %, and 16.9% ± 13.8%, varying almost twofold across vendor. Moderate inter-observer variability was present. Volume measurement was slightly more accurate than linear measurement, but linear measurement was more reproducible across readers and systems. On the two “best” systems, the manual measurement method was more accurate than the automated method (p = 0.001). The prototype system demonstrated superior semi-automated assessment, with a mean % volume error of 5.3% ± 4.1% (vs. 17.8% ± 11.1% and 31.5% ± 19.7%, p < 0.001), with improved inter- and intra-observer variability.

Conclusions

Accuracy and reproducibility of volume assessment of liver lesions varies significantly by vendor, which has important implications for clinical use.

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
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Paesmans M, Sculier JP, Libert P, et al. (1997) Response to chemotherapy has predictive value for further survival of patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer: 10 years experience of the European Lung Cancer Working Party. Eur J Cancer 33:2326–2332

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Buyse M, Thirion P, Carlson RW, et al. (2000) Relation between tumour response to first-line chemotherapy and survival in advanced colorectal cancer: a meta-analysis. Meta-Analysis Group in Cancer. Lancet 356:373–378

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Goffin J, Baral S, Tu D, Nomikos D, Seymour L (2005) Objective responses in patients with malignant melanoma or renal cell cancer in early clinical studies do not predict regulatory approval. Clin Cancer Res 11:5928–5934

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. El-Maraghi RH, Eisenhauer EA (2008) Review of phase II trial designs used in studies of molecular targeted agents: outcomes and predictors of success in phase III. J Clin Oncol 26:1346–1354

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Therasse P, Arbuck SG, Eisenhauer EA, et al. (2000) New guidelines to evaluate the response to treatment in solid tumors. European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer, National Cancer Institute of the United States, National Cancer Institute of Canada. J Natl Cancer Inst 92:205–216

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Arimoto T (1993) Significance of computed tomography-measured volume in the prognosis of cervical carcinoma. Cancer 72:2383–2388

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Chen SW, Yang SN, Liang JA, Lin FJ, Tsai MH (2009) Prognostic impact of tumor volume in patients with stage III–IVA hypopharyngeal cancer without bulky lymph nodes treated with definitive concurrent chemoradiotherapy. Head Neck 31:709–716

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Yeo SG, Kim DY, Park JW, et al. (2011) Tumor volume reduction rate after preoperative chemoradiotherapy as a prognostic factor in locally advanced rectal cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 18(13):3686–3693. doi:10.1245/s10434-011-1822-0

    Google Scholar 

  10. Kim YC, Lim JS, Keum KC, et al. (2011) Comparison of diffusion-weighted MRI and MR volumetry in the evaluation of early treatment outcomes after preoperative chemoradiotherapy for locally advanced rectal cancer. J Mag Reson Imaging: JMRI 34(3):570–576. doi:10.1002/jmri.22696

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Hopper KD, Kasales CJ, Eggli KD, et al. (1996) The impact of 2D versus 3D quantitation of tumor bulk determination on current methods of assessing response to treatment. J Comput Assist Tomogr 20:930–937

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Pickhardt PJ, Lehman VT, Winter TC, Taylor AJ (2006) Polyp volume versus linear size measurements at CT colonography: implications for noninvasive surveillance of unresected colorectal lesions. AJR Am J Roentgenol 186:1605–1610

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Prasad SR, Jhaveri KS, Saini S, et al. (2002) CT tumor measurement for therapeutic response assessment: comparison of unidimensional, bidimensional, and volumetric techniques initial observations. Radiology 225:416–419

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Sargent DJ, Rubinstein L, Schwartz L, et al. (2009) Validation of novel imaging methodologies for use as cancer clinical trial end-points. Eur J Cancer 45:290–299

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Hillman SL, An MW, O’Connell MJ, et al. (2009) Evaluation of the optimal number of lesions needed for tumor evaluation using the response evaluation criteria in solid tumors: a north central cancer treatment group investigation. J Clin Oncol 27:3205–3210

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Bolte H, Riedel C, Muller-Hulsbeck S, et al. (2007) Precision of computer-aided volumetry of artificial small solid pulmonary nodules in ex vivo porcine lungs. Br J Radiol 80:414–421

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Buckler AJ, Mozley PD, Schwartz L, et al. (2010) Volumetric CT in lung cancer: an example for the qualification of imaging as a biomarker. Acad Radiol 17:107–115

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Erasmus JJ, Gladish GW, Broemeling L, et al. (2003) Interobserver and intraobserver variability in measurement of non-small-cell carcinoma lung lesions: implications for assessment of tumor response. J Clin Oncol 21:2574–2582

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Hein PA, Romano VC, Rogalla P, et al. (2009) Linear and volume measurements of pulmonary nodules at different CT dose levels: intrascan and interscan analysis. RoFo 181:24–31

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Marchiano A, Calabro E, Civelli E, et al. (2009) Pulmonary nodules: volume repeatability at multidetector CT lung cancer screening. Radiology 251:919–925

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Marten K, Engelke C (2007) Computer-aided detection and automated CT volumetry of pulmonary nodules. Eur Radiol 17:888–901

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Mozley PD, Schwartz LH, Bendtsen C, et al. (2010) Change in lung tumor volume as a biomarker of treatment response: a critical review of the evidence. Ann Oncol 21:1751–1755

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Wormanns D, Kohl G, Klotz E, et al. (2004) Volumetric measurements of pulmonary nodules at multi-row detector CT: in vivo reproducibility. Eur Radiol 14:86–92

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Costello P, Duszlak EJ, Lokich J, Matelski H, Clouse ME (1983) Assessment of tumor response by computed tomography liver volumetry. J Comput Tomogr 7:323–326

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. De Vriendt G, Rigauts H, Meeus L (1998) A semi-automated program for volume measurement in focal hepatic lesions: a first clinical experience. J Belg Radiol 81:181–183

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Fabel M, Bolte H, von Tengg-Kobligk H, et al. (2011) Semi-automated volumetric analysis of lymph node metastases during follow-up: initial results. Eur Radiol 21:683–692

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Fabel M, von Tengg-Kobligk H, Giesel FL, et al. (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

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Keil S, Behrendt FF, Stanzel S, et al. (2008) Semi-automated measurement of hyperdense, hypodense and heterogeneous hepatic metastasis on standard MDCT slices. Comparison of semi-automated and manual measurement of RECIST and WHO criteria. Eur Radiol 18:2456–2465

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Keil S, Bruners P, Ohnsorge L, et al. (2010) Semiautomated versus manual evaluation of liver metastases treated by radiofrequency ablation. J Vascular Interv Radiol: JVIR 21:245–251

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Keil S, Plumhans C, Behrendt FF, et al. (2009) Semi-automated quantification of hepatic lesions in a phantom. Invest Radiol 44:82–88

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Keil S, Plumhans C, Behrendt FF, et al. (2009) Automated measurement of lymph nodes: a phantom study. Eur Radiol 19:1079–1086

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Keil S, Plumhans C, Nagy IA, et al. (2010) Dose reduction for semi-automated volumetry of hepatic metastasis in MDCT studies. Investig Radiol 45:77–81

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Zhou JY, Wong DW, Ding F, et al. (2010) Liver tumour segmentation using contrast-enhanced multi-detector CT data: performance benchmarking of three semiautomated methods. Eur Radiol 20:1738–1748

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Dubus L, Gayet M, Zappa M, et al. (2011) Comparison of semi-automated and manual methods to measure the volume of liver tumours on MDCT images. Eur Radiol 21:996–1003

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Keil S, Bruners P, Schiffl K, et al. (2010) Radiofrequency ablation of liver metastases-software-assisted evaluation of the ablation zone in MDCT: tumor-free follow-up versus local recurrent disease. Cardiovasc Interv Radiol 33:297–306

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Kudo K, Christensen S, Sasaki M, et al. (2013) Accuracy and reliability assessment of CT and MR perfusion analysis software using a digital phantom. Radiology 267:201–211

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Heye T, Davenport MS, Horvath JJ, et al. (2013) Reproducibility of dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging. Part I. Perfusion characteristics in the female pelvis by using multiple computer-aided diagnosis perfusion analysis solutions. Radiology 266:801–811

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. RDCT (2009) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. In: R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. http://www.R-project.org

  39. Mazzaferro V, Regalia E, Doci R, et al. (1996) Liver transplantation for the treatment of small hepatocellular carcinomas in patients with cirrhosis. N Engl J Med 334:693–699

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

AUR-GE Radiology Research Academic Fellowship (GERRAF).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiology, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, E3/311 Clinical Science Center, 600 Highland Ave., Madison, WI, 53792-3252, USA

    Meghan G. Lubner, B. Dustin Pooler, Alejandro Munoz del Rio, Ben Durkee & Perry J. Pickhardt

Authors
  1. Meghan G. Lubner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. B. Dustin Pooler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Alejandro Munoz del Rio
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Ben Durkee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Perry J. Pickhardt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Meghan G. Lubner.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Lubner, M.G., Dustin Pooler, B., del Rio, A.M. et al. Volumetric evaluation of hepatic tumors: multi-vendor, multi-reader liver phantom study. Abdom Imaging 39, 488–496 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-014-0079-z

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-014-0079-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation