» Articles » PMID: 23489982

Exploring Intra- and Inter-reader Variability in Uni-dimensional, Bi-dimensional, and Volumetric Measurements of Solid Tumors on CT Scans Reconstructed at Different Slice Intervals

Overview
Journal Eur J Radiol
Specialty Radiology
Date 2013 Mar 16
PMID 23489982
Citations 52
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Objective: Understanding magnitudes of variability when measuring tumor size may be valuable in improving detection of tumor change and thus evaluating tumor response to therapy in clinical trials and care. Our study explored intra- and inter-reader variability of tumor uni-dimensional (1D), bi-dimensional (2D), and volumetric (VOL) measurements using manual and computer-aided methods (CAM) on CT scans reconstructed at different slice intervals.

Materials And Methods: Raw CT data from 30 patients enrolled in oncology clinical trials was reconstructed at 5, 2.5, and 1.25 mm slice intervals. 118 lesions in the lungs, liver, and lymph nodes were analyzed. For each lesion, two independent radiologists manually and, separately, using computer software, measured the maximum diameter (1D), maximum perpendicular diameter, and volume (CAM only). One of them blindly repeated the measurements. Intra- and inter-reader variability for the manual method and CAM were analyzed using linear mixed-effects models and Bland-Altman method.

Results: For the three slice intervals, the maximum coefficients of variation for manual intra-/inter-reader variability were 6.9%/9.0% (1D) and 12.3%/18.0% (2D), and for CAM were 5.4%/9.3% (1D), 11.3%/18.8% (2D) and 9.3%/18.0% (VOL). Maximal 95% reference ranges for the percentage difference in intra-reader measurements for manual 1D and 2D, and CAM VOL were (-15.5%, 25.8%), (-27.1%, 51.6%), and (-22.3%, 33.6%), respectively.

Conclusions: Variability in measuring the diameter and volume of solid tumors, manually and by CAM, is affected by CT slice interval. The 2.5mm slice interval provides the least measurement variability. Among the three techniques, 2D has the greatest measurement variability compared to 1D and 3D.

Citing Articles

Towards automatical tumor segmentation in radiomics: a comparative analysis of various methods and radiologists for both region extraction and downstream diagnosis.

Yu Y, Li G, Tan W, Qu X, Zhang T, Hou X BMC Med Imaging. 2025; 25(1):63.

PMID: 40000987 PMC: 11863488. DOI: 10.1186/s12880-025-01596-2.


Clinical outcome of Yttrium-90 selective internal radiation therapy (Y-90 SIRT) in unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma: Experience from a tertiary care center.

Chaikajornwat J, Tanasoontrarat W, Phathong C, Pinjaroen N, Chaiteerakij R Liver Res. 2025; 6(1):30-38.

PMID: 39959806 PMC: 11791811. DOI: 10.1016/j.livres.2021.07.001.


Hierarchical classification of early microscopic lung nodule based on cascade network.

Liu Z, Yuan Y, Zhang C, Zhu Q, Xu X, Yuan M Health Inf Sci Syst. 2024; 12(1):13.

PMID: 38404714 PMC: 10891040. DOI: 10.1007/s13755-024-00273-y.


Beneficial Use of the Combination of Gemcitabine and Dacarbazine in Advanced Soft Tissue Sarcomas: Real-World Data.

Gurruchaga Sotes I, Gomez-Mateo M, Ortega Izquierdo M, Martinez-Trufero J Cancers (Basel). 2024; 16(2).

PMID: 38254758 PMC: 10813902. DOI: 10.3390/cancers16020267.


Assessing Radiological Response to Immunotherapy in Lung Cancer: An Evolving Arena.

Rallis K, Makker S, Ghose A, Sideris M Cancer Diagn Progn. 2024; 4(1):1-8.

PMID: 38173660 PMC: 10758839. DOI: 10.21873/cdp.10278.


References
1.
Bland J, Altman D . Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet. 1986; 1(8476):307-10. View

2.
Yan J, Zhao B, Wang L, Zelenetz A, Schwartz L . Marker-controlled watershed for lymphoma segmentation in sequential CT images. Med Phys. 2006; 33(7):2452-60. DOI: 10.1118/1.2207133. View

3.
Wang Y, de Bock G, van Klaveren R, van Ooyen P, Tukker W, Zhao Y . Volumetric measurement of pulmonary nodules at low-dose chest CT: effect of reconstruction setting on measurement variability. Eur Radiol. 2009; 20(5):1180-7. PMC: 2850527. DOI: 10.1007/s00330-009-1634-9. View

4.
Burton P, Gurrin L, Sly P . Extending the simple linear regression model to account for correlated responses: an introduction to generalized estimating equations and multi-level mixed modelling. Stat Med. 1998; 17(11):1261-91. DOI: 10.1002/(sici)1097-0258(19980615)17:11<1261::aid-sim846>3.0.co;2-z. View

5.
Barnhart H, Barboriak D . Applications of the repeatability of quantitative imaging biomarkers: a review of statistical analysis of repeat data sets. Transl Oncol. 2009; 2(4):231-5. PMC: 2781067. DOI: 10.1593/tlo.09268. View