• Ying Ru Zhao, Peter M A van Ooijen, Monique D Dorrius, Marjolein Heuvelmans, Geertruida H de Bock, Rozemarijn Vliegenthart, and Matthijs Oudkerk.
• Center for Medical Imaging, North East Netherlands, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands Department of Radiology, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands.
• Acta Radiol. 2014 Jul 1;55(6):691-8.

BackgroundEarly diagnosis of lung cancer in a treatable stage is the main purpose of lung cancer screening by computed tomography (CT). Accurate three-dimensional size and growth measurements are essential to assess the risk of malignancy. Nodule volumes can be calculated by using semi-automated volumetric software. Systematic differences in volume measurements between packages could influence nodule categorization and management decisions.PurposeTo compare volumetric measurements of solid pulmonary nodules on baseline and follow-up CT scans as well as the volume doubling time (VDT) for three software packages.Material And MethodsFrom a Lung Cancer Screening study (NELSON), 50 participants were randomly selected from the baseline round. The study population comprised participants with at least one pulmonary nodule at the baseline and consecutive CT examination. The volume of each nodule was determined for both time points using three semi-automated software packages (P1, P2, and P3). Manual modification was performed when automated assessment was visually inaccurate. VDT was calculated to evaluate nodule growth. Volume, VDT, and nodule management were compared for the three software packages, using P1 as the reference standard.ResultsIn 25 participants, 147 nodules were present on both examinations (volume: 12.0-436.6 mm(3)). Initial segmentation at baseline was evaluated to be satisfactory in 93.9% of nodules for P1, 84.4 % for P2, and 88.4% for P3. Significant difference was found in measured volume between P1 and the other two packages (P < 0.001). P2 overestimated the volume by 38 ± 24%, and P3 by 50 ± 22%. At baseline, there was consensus on nodule size categorization in 80% for P1&P2 and 74% for P1&P3. At follow-up, consensus on VDT categorization was present in 47% for P1&P2 and 44% for P1&P3.ConclusionSoftware packages for lung nodule evaluation yield significant differences in volumetric measurements and VDT. This variation affects the classification of lung nodules, especially in follow-up examinations.© The Foundation Acta Radiologica 2013 Reprints and permissions: sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav.

26 keywords...

hide…