BJR
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
First published online March 30, 2009
British Journal of Radiology (2009) 82, 716-723
© 2009 British Institute of Radiology
doi: 10.1259/bjr/40733553
This Article
Right arrow Figures Only
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by MARTEN, K
Right arrow Articles by ENGELKE, C
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by MARTEN, K
Right arrow Articles by ENGELKE, C

Comparison of flat-panel-detector-based CT and multidetector-row CT in automated volumetry of pulmonary nodules using an anthropomorphic chest phantom

K MARTEN, MD 1 C DULLIN, PhD 1 W MACHANN, MD 2 J S SCHMID, MD 1 M DAS, MD 3 K-P HERMANN, PhD 2 and C ENGELKE, MD 1

1 Department of Radiology, Georg-August-University, Güttingen, 2 Department of Radiology, University of Würzburg, Würzburg, 3 Department of Diagnostic Radiology, RWTH Aachen University, Aachen, Germany

Correspondence: Katharina Marten, Department of Radiology, Georg-August-University, Robert-Koch-Str. 40, 37075 Göttingen, Germany. E-mail: kmarten{at}med.uni-goettingen.de

This study evaluates the accuracy and reproducibility of an experimental flat-panel-detector-based CT scanner (fp-CT) in comparison with those of a 64-slice multidetector row CT (MDCT) in automated pulmonary nodule volumetry. An anthropomorphic chest phantom with 31 spherical nodules (nodule diameters of 2.94–10.01 mm; volumes of 13.24–524.97 mm3) was scanned both with an amorphous silicon-based fp-CT scanner, using various tube current and kilovoltage settings, and with a conventional MDCT scanner. Automated nodule volumetry was performed using dedicated software. CT image data were evaluated twice by two independent radiologists. Intra- and inter-observer variations of volumetric measurements were determined and tested using the Kruskal–Wallis test and analysis of variance (fn-ANOVA). The percentage measurement errors (PME) were calculated and differences tested using Wilcoxon signed ranks and Friedman tests. Intraobserver variation was significantly higher for MDCT than for fp-CT (range: p = 0.043–0.045). The measured nodule volumes were significantly greater on fp-CT than on MDCT scans (p<0.001). The PME was significantly greater in fp-CT than in MDCT scans (PME range, 12.35–13.35% for fp-CT scan protocols and 16.87–19.02% for MDCT scan protocols; p<0.0001). The PME increased significantly with reduction of nodule size, and this increase was significantly higher on MDCT than on fp-CT scans (p = 0.0001). The absolute PME was significantly different for nodules of less than 5 mm in diameter (p = 0.0001–0.0033) than for larger nodules. Flat-panel-detector-based CT has advantages over MDCT in accurately determining the volume of pulmonary nodules below 5 mm in diameter.






HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
BJR DMFR IMAGING  ALL BIR JOURNALS 
Copyright © 2009 by the British Institute of Radiology.