BJR
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
First published online March 30, 2009
British Journal of Radiology (2009) 82, 742-747
© 2009 British Institute of Radiology
doi: 10.1259/bjr/67746844
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 HONDA, O
Right arrow Articles by NAKAMURA, H
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by HONDA, O
Right arrow Articles by NAKAMURA, H

Reproducibility of temporal volume change in CT of lung cancer: comparison of computer software and manual assessment

O HONDA, MD, PhD 1 M KAWAI, MD 2 T GYOBU, MD 3 Y KAWATA, MD 4 T JOHKOH, MD, PhD 5 J SEKIGUCHI, RT 6 N TOMIYAMA, MD, PhD 1 S YOSHIDA, MD 1 H SUMIKAWA, MD, PhD 1 A INOUE, MD, PhD 1 M YANAGAWA, MD 1 T DAIMON, MD 1 and H NAKAMURA, MD, PhD 1

1 Department of Radiology, Osaka University Graduate School of Medicine, Osaka, Japan, 2 Department of Radiology, Osaka National Hospital, Osaka, Japan, 3 Department of Radiology, Osaka Rosai Hospital, Osaka, Japan, 4 Department of Diagnostic Radiology, Osaka Medical Center for Cancer and Cardiovascular Diseases, Osaka, Japan, 5 Department of Radiology, Kinki Central Hospital, Hyogo, Japan, and 6 CT Advance Applications, GE Healthcare Technologies, Tokyo, Japan

Correspondence: Dr Osamu Honda, Department of radiology, Osaka University Graduate School of Medicine, 2-2 Yamadaoka, Suita-City, Osaka, 565-0871, Japan. E-mail: ohonda{at}radiol.med.osaka-u.ac.jp

The purpose of this study was to investigate the reproducibility of volumetric software evaluation and manual evaluation of tumour growth. Three observers manually evaluated whether tumour volume was increasing, if it was unchanged, or if it had decreased in size in 2 serial CT examinations of 45 solid lung cancers. The tumour volumes were calculated 3 times using volumetric software and were evaluated using the same classifications as for manual evaluation. Both data sets were divided into three groups: growth or reduction with consistency among all three evaluations (group A), growth or reduction with consistency between only two evaluations (group B), and others (group C). The volume variation and relative volume variation were calculated from the median volumes measured by volumetric software. Although all 45 tumours were categorised in group A by volumetric software, only 21 tumours were categorised in group A by manual assessment. The relative volume variation of the manual assessment was 88.5 ± 76.5%, 20.8 ± 28.3% and 12.9 ± 12.8% in group A, B and C, respectively. Significant differences were found between groups A and B (p<0.01) and between groups A and C (p<0.001). Inconsistency is often seen in manual assessment; in contrast, evaluation using volumetric software has good reproducibility, even when the relative change in tumour volume is small.






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