Abstract
The aim of this study was to evaluate inter- and intra-observer reproducibility when making electronic caliper linear tumor measurements on picture archiving and communications systems (PACS) and compare them with linear measurements obtained from circumferential tracing of tumor perimeter. Three radiologists measured 64 masses from 30 patients on body CT scans in two separate settings. Long axis and perpendicular short axis were measured using electronic calipers. The edge of each tumor was traced electronically and the long and short axes were calculated by computer software. The reproducibility of a measurement was evaluated by computing and comparing the absolute value of the mean difference between initial and subsequent measurements. The mean differences ±95% confidence interval (CI) between two measurements of the long by short axis were 3.8±2.6×3.1±1.8 mm when the caliper method was used and 3.5±2.0×3.2±1.5 mm when the tumor tracing method was used. There was no statistically significant difference in individual intra-observer reproducibility of tumor axes measurements. Neither long- nor short-axis single-dimension measurements resulted in significantly greater or lesser intra-observer reproducibility. When comparing caliper and tracing measurements, the overall mean difference (3.42±1.8 vs 3.38±1.4 mm) was not statistically significant. There was close correlation between the individual measurements made by each observer whether these were made by electronic calipers and when these were calculated from electronic tracings (Pearson correlations between 0.79 and 0.949). Current PACS systems allow reproducible linear, long or short axis, tumor measurements. There is no significant difference in reproducibility of measurements whether these are made directly with electronic calipers or calculated from tumor edge tracings.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Blum JL, Jones SE, Buzdar AU et al. (1999) Multicenter Phase II study of capecitabine in paclitaxel-refractory metastatic breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 17:485–493
Therasse P, Arbuck SG, Eisenhauer EA et al. (2000). New guidelines to evaluate the response to treatment in solid tumors. JNCI 92:205–216
Miller AB, Hoogstraten B, Staquet M, Winkler A (1981) Reporting results of cancer treatment. Cancer 47:207–214
WHO handbook for reporting results of cancer treatment (1979) Geneva, Switzerland. World Health Organization Offset Publication no. 48
Oken MM, Creech RH, Tormey DC et al. (1982) Toxicity and response criteria of Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group. Am J Clin Oncol 5:649–655
Warr D, Mckinney S, Tannock I (1984) Influence of measurement error on assessment of response to anticancer chemotherapy: proposal for new criteria of tumor response. J Clin Oncol 2:1040–1046
Lavin PT, Flowerdew G (1980) Studies in variation associated with the measurement of solid tumors. Cancer 46:1286–1290
Hopper KD, Kasales CJ, Van Slyke MA et al. (1996) Analysis of inter-observer and intra-observer variability in CT tumor measurements. AJR 167:851–854
MonskyWL, HeddensDK, Gary M, Clark GMet al. (2000) A comparison of young clinical investigators’ accuracy and reproducibility when measuring pulmonary and skin surface nodules using a circumferential measurement vs a standard caliper measurement: AACR/ASCO Clinical Trials Workshop. J Clin Oncol 18:437–444
Bellon E, Feron M, Maes F, Hoe LV, Delaerc D, Haven F, Sunaert S, Baert AC, Marshal G, Suetens P (1997) Evaluation of manual vs semi-automated delineation of liver lesions in CT images. Eur Radiol 7:432–438
Freedman D, Pisani R, Purves R, Adhikari A (1995) Statistics, 2nd edn. W.W. Norton and Co.
Moertel CG, Thynne GS (1982) In: Holland JF, Frei E III (eds) Cancer medicine, 2nd edn. Lea and Febiger, Philadelphia, pp 1830–1859
Tonkin K, Tritchler D, Tannock I (1985) Criteria of tumor response used in clinical trials of chemotherapy. J Clin Oncol 3:870–875
Moertel CG, Hanley JA (1976) The effect of measuring error on the results of therapeutic trials in advanced cancer. Cancer 38:388–394
Warr D, Mckinney S, Tannock I (1984) Influence of measurement error on assessment of response to anticancer chemotherapy: proposal for a new criteria of tumor response. J Clin Oncol 2:1040–1046
Thiesse P, Ollivier L, Di Stefano-Louineau D et al. (1997) Response rate accuracy in oncology trials: reasons for inter-observer variability. J Clin Oncol 15:3507–3514
Fornage BD (1993) Measuring masses on cross-sectional images. Radiology 187:289
Schwartz LH, Ginsberg MS, DeCorato D et al. (2000) Evaluation of tumor measurements in oncology: use of film-based and electronic techniques. J Clin Oncol 18:2179–2184
Saini S (2000) Radiologic measurement of tumor size in clinical trials: past, present, and future. AJR 176:333–334
Ishifuro M, Horiguchi J, Nakashige A et al. (2002) Use of multidetector row CT with volume-rendering in right lobe living liver transplantation. Eur Radiol 12:2477–2483
Aberele DR, Dionisio JD, McNitt-Gray MF et al. (1996) Integrated multimedia timeline for oncology patient healthcare. RadioGraphics 16:669–681
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Monsky, W.L., Raptopoulos, V., Keogan, M.T. et al. Reproducibility of linear tumor measurements using PACS: comparison of caliper method with edge-tracing method. Eur Radiol 14, 519–525 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-003-2027-0
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-003-2027-0