Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Three-dimensional analysis of pulmonary nodules: variability of semiautomated volume measurements between different versions of the same software

Analisi tridimensionale dei noduli polmonari: variabilità delle misurazioni volumetriche semiautomatiche tra differenti versioni dello stesso software

  • Chest Radiology/Radiologia Toracica
  • Published:
La radiologia medica Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

This study was done to evaluate the variability of semiautomated volume measurements of solid pulmonary nodules between two different versions of the same volumetric software.

Materials and methods

The volumes of 100 solid intraparenchymal nodules (mean volume 88.10 mm3; range 7.36–595.25 mm3) studied with the same multidetector computed tomography (MDCT) protocol were determined using two different versions of the same volumetric software (LungCARE 2006G and LungCARE 2007S). The 2006G version is based on a single-segmentation algorithm, whereas the newer version features two algorithms: SmallSizeNodule and AllSizeNodule. The results obtained with the 2006G version were compared with those of the 2007S version with the SmallSizeNodule algorithm, as recommended by the user manual. In addition, we compared the volumetric measurements obtained by the two different algorithms of the 2007S version.

Results

The 2006G version and the 2007S version with the SmallSizeNodule algorithm agreed in only two of 100 cases and showed a mean variability of 1.66% (range 0%–8.78%). A more significant volumetric discrepancy was observed between the two different algorithms of the 2007S version, with the AllSizeNodule algorithm providing on average larger volumes (mean variability 71.08%; range 6.02%–218.80%) than SmallSizeNodule. Volume discrepancies were more pronounced in the subgroups of smaller nodules in all comparisons.

Conclusions

There is variability also in the results provided by different versions of the same volumetric software, and this may affect the calculation of the nodule-doubling time. Computer-aided assessment of the growth of lung nodules should always be performed using the same version of volumetric software and the same segmentation algorithm.

Riassunto

Obiettivo

Scopo del nostro studio è stato valutare la variabilità delle misurazioni volumetriche di noduli polmonari solidi dovuta all’utilizzo di diverse versioni dello stesso software di volumetria.

Materiali e metodi

I volumi di 100 noduli polmonari solidi intraparenchimali (volume medio di 88,10 mm3; range 7,36–595,25 mm3) sottoposti a tomografia computerizzata (TC) multidetettore con lo stesso protocollo d’esame sono stati misurati con 2 versioni diverse dello stesso software di volumetria (LungCARE 2006G e LungCARE 2007S). La versione 2006G presenta un unico algoritmo di segmentazione mentre la versione 2007S è dotata di 2 algoritmi chiamati SmallSizeNodule e AllSizeNodule. I risultati della versione 2006G sono stati confrontati con quelli della versione 2007S ottenuti con l’algoritmo SmallSizeNodule come consigliato dal manuale del software. Sono stati inoltre confrontati tra loro i risultati delle volumetrie ottenute con i diversi algoritmi della versione 2007S.

Risultati

La versione 2006G e la versione 2007S con algoritmo SmallSizeNodule hanno dato un risultato sovrapponibile solo in 2 casi su 100 ed hanno esibito una variabilità volumetrica media dell’1.66% (range 0%–8,78%). Una discrepanza volumetrica assai maggiore è stata osservata tra i 2 diversi algoritmi di segmentazione della versione 2007S in cui l’algoritmo AllSizeNodule ha fornito volumi mediamente superiori del 71,08% (range 6,02%–218,80%) rispetto all’algoritmo SmallSizeNodule. L’entità delle discrepanze volumetriche è risultata maggiore nei sottogruppi di noduli di minori dimensioni in tutte le comparazioni eseguite.

Conclusioni

Anche tra diverse versioni dello stesso software di analisi volumetrica esiste una variabilità di risultati che può influenzare il calcolo del tempo di raddoppiamento dei noduli. La valutazione computerizzata del tasso di crescita di un nodulo polmonare andrebbe eseguita utilizzando nei vari controlli sempre la stessa versione del software di volumetria ed il medesimo algoritmo di segmentazione.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References/Bibliografia

  1. Revel MP, Bissery A, Bienvenu M et al (2004) Are two-dimensional CT measurements of small noncalcified pulmonary nodules reliable? Radiology 231:453–458

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Das M, Ley-Zaporozhan J, Gietema HA et al (2007) Accuracy of automated volumetry of pulmonary nodules across different multislice CT scanners. Eur Radiol 17:1979–1984

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Honda O, Sumikawa H, Johkoh T et al (2007) Computer-assisted lung nodule volumetry from multi-detector row CT: Influence of image reconstruction parameters. Eur J Radiol 62:106–113

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Larici AR, Storto ML, Torge M et al (2008) Automated volumetry of pulmonary nodules on multidetector CT: influence of slice thickness, reconstruction algorithm and tube current. Preliminary results. Radiol Med 113:29–42

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. de Hoop B, Gietema H, van Ginneken B et al (2008) A comparison of six software packages for evaluation of solid lung nodules using semi-automated volumetry: What is the minimum increase in size to detect growth in repeated CT examinations. Eur Radiol 19:800–808

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Siemens Medical (2006) SyngoCT 2007S. Istruzione d’uso. Volume 4. Siemens Medical, Muenchen

    Google Scholar 

  7. Fischbach F, Knollmann F, Griesshaber V et al (2003) Detection of pulmonary nodules by multislice computed tomography: improved detection rate with reduced slice thickness. Eur Radiol 13:2378–2383

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Diederich S, Wormanns D, Semik M et al (2002) Screening for early lung cancer with low-dose spiral CT: prevalence in 817 asymptomatic smokers. Radiology 222:773–781

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Roberts HC, Patsios D, Paul NS et al (2007) Lung cancer screening with low-dose computed tomography: canadian experience. Can Assoc Radiol J 58:225–235

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Kim YH, Lee KS, Primack SL et al (2002) Small pulmonary nodules on CT accompanying surgically resectable lung cancer: likelihood of malignancy. J Thorac Imaging 17:40–46

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. MacMahon H, Austin JHM, Gamsu G et al (2005) Guidelines for management of small pulmonary nodules detected on CT scans: a statement from the Fleischner Society. Radiology 237:395–400

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Goodman LR, Gulsun M, Washington L et al (2006) Inherent variability of CT lung nodule measurements in vivo using semiautomated volumetric measurements. AJR Am J Roentgenol 186:989–994

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Wormanns D, Diederich S (2004) Characterization of small pulmonary nodules by CT. Eur Radiol 14:1380–1391

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Gietema HA, Wang Y, Xu D et al (2006) Pulmonary nodules detected at lung cancer screening: interobserver variability of semiautomated volume measurements. Radiology 241:251–257

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Revel MP, Lefort C, Bissery A et al (2004) Pulmonary nodules: preliminary experience with three-dimensional evaluation. Radiology 231:459–466

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Jennings SG, Winer-Muram HT, Tarver RD, Farber MO (2004) Lung tumor growth: assessment with CT. Comparison of diameter and cross-sectional area with volume measurements. Radiology 231:866–871

    Google Scholar 

  17. Revel MP, Merlin A, Peyrard S et al (2006) Software volumetric evaluation of doubling times for differentiating benign versus malignant pulmonary nodules. AJR Am J Roentgenol 187:135–142

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Chest Xray Doubling Time Calculator. Published June 2000, revised July 2004. Available at: http://www.chestxray.com/SPN/DoublingTime.html. Accessed October 2009

  19. Gietema HA, Schaefer-Prokop CM, Mali WPTM et al (2007) Pulmonary nodules: interscan variability of semiautomated volume measurements with multisection CT — Influence of inspiration level, nodule size, and segmentation performance. Radiology 245:888–894

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Boll DT, Gilkeson RC, Fleiter TR et al (2004) Volumetric assessment of pulmonary nodules with ECG-gated MDCT. AJR Am J Roentgenol 183:1217–1223

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Kostis WJ, Yankelevitz DF, Reeves AP et al (2004) Small pulmonary nodules: reproducibility of three-dimensional volumetric measurement and estimation of time to follow-up CT. Radiology 231:446–452

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Wang Y, van Klaveren RJ, van der Zaag-Loonen HJ et al (2008) Effect of nodule characteristics on variability of semiautomated volume measurements in pulmonary nodules detected in a lung cancer screening program. Radiology 248:625–631

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Petrou M, Quint LE, Nan B, Baker LH (2007) Pulmonary nodule volumetric measurement variability as a function of CT slice thickness and nodule morphology. AJR Am J Roentgenol 188:306–312

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Radiologia III, Policlinico S. Orsola-Malpighi, Bologna, Italy

    M.F. Rinaldi, L. Braccaioli & M. Zompatori

  2. Dottorato di Scienze Pneumo-Cardio-Toraciche di Interesse Medico e Chirurgico, Università di Bologna, Bologna, Italy

    M.F. Rinaldi, T. Bartalena & S. Mattioli

  3. Dipartimento di Scienze Cliniche, Sezione di Radiologia, Università di Parma, Parma, Italy

    N. Sverzellati

  4. Unità Operativa di Chirurgia Esofago-Polmonare dell’Università di Bologna, Villa Maria Cecilia e San Pier Damiano Hospitals, Cotignola e Faenza, Italy

    S. Mattioli

  5. Servizio di Radiologia e Diagnostica per Immagini, Istituto Ortopedico Rizzoli, Bologna, Italy

    E. Rimondi & G. Rossi

  6. Radiologia I, Policlinico S. Orsola-Malpighi, Bologna, Italy

    G. Battista & R. Canini

  7. Servizio di Radiologia, Poliambulatorio Privato Zappi Bartalena, Via Cogne 4, Imola, Bologna, Italy

    T. Bartalena

Authors
  1. M.F. Rinaldi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. T. Bartalena
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. L. Braccaioli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. N. Sverzellati
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. S. Mattioli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. E. Rimondi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. G. Rossi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. M. Zompatori
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. G. Battista
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. R. Canini
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to T. Bartalena.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Rinaldi, M., Bartalena, T., Braccaioli, L. et al. Three-dimensional analysis of pulmonary nodules: variability of semiautomated volume measurements between different versions of the same software. Radiol med 115, 403–412 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11547-010-0511-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11547-010-0511-6

Keywords

Parole chiave

Search

Navigation