"skipMainNavigation"
Search
Quick Search in Journals
Quick Search anywhere
Advanced Search
Radiology
Menu
  • Information
    • Previous
    Next
    Experimental Studies

    Volumetric Measurement of Synthetic Lung Nodules with Multi–Detector Row CT: Effect of Various Image Reconstruction Parameters and Segmentation Thresholds on Measurement Accuracy

    Published Online:Jun 1 2005https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2353040737

    Abstract

    PURPOSE: To evaluate the effect of various multi–detector row computed tomographic (CT) reconstruction parameters and nodule segmentation thresholds on the accuracy of volumetric measurement of synthetic lung nodules.

    MATERIALS AND METHODS: Synthetic lung nodules of four different diameters (3.2, 4.8, 6.4, and 12.7 mm) were scanned with multi–detector row CT. Images were reconstructed at various section thicknesses (0.75, 1.0, 2.0, 3.0, and 5.0 mm), fields of view (30, 20, and 10 cm), and reconstruction intervals (0.5, 1.0, and 2.0 mm). The nodules were segmented from the simulated background lung region by using four segmentation thresholds (−300, −400, −500, and −600 HU), and their volumes were estimated and compared with a reference standard (measurements according to fluid displacement) by computing the absolute percentage error (APE). APE was regressed against nodule size, and multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was performed with APE as the dependent variable and with four within-subject factors (field of view, reconstruction interval, threshold, and section thickness).

    RESULTS: The MANOVA demonstrated statistically significant effects for threshold (P = .02), section thickness (P < .01), and interaction of threshold and section thickness (P = .04). The regression of mean APE values on nodule size indicates that APE progressively increases with decreasing synthetic nodule size (R2 = 0.99, P < .01).

    CONCLUSION: For accurate measurement of lung nodule volume, it is critical to select a section thickness and/or segmentation threshold appropriate for the size of a nodule.

    © RSNA, 2005

    References

    • 1 Fischbach F, Knollmann F, Griesshaber V, Freund T, Akkol E, Felix R. Detection of pulmonary nodules by multislice computed tomography: improved detection rate with reduced slice thickness. Eur Radiol 2003; 13:2378-2383.
      MedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 2 Armato SG, III, Li F, Giger ML, MacMahon H, Sone S, Doi K. Lung cancer: performance of automated lung nodule detection applied to cancers missed in a CT screening program. Radiology 2002; 225:685-692.
      Google Scholar
    • 3 Brown MS, Goldin JG, Suh RD, McNitt-Gray MF, Sayre JW, Aberle DR. Lung micronodules: automated method for detection at thin-section CT—initial experience. Radiology 2003; 226:256-262.
      Google Scholar
    • 4 Goo JM, Lee JW, Lee HJ, Kim S, Kim JH, Im JG. Automated lung nodule detection at low-dose CT: preliminary experience. Korean J Radiol 2003; 4:211-216.
      MedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 5 Armato SG, III, Altman MB, Wilkie J, et al. Automated lung nodule classification following automated nodule detection on CT: a serial approach. Med Phys 2003; 30:1188-1197.
      MedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 6 Munden RF, Pugatch RD, Liptay MJ, Sugarbaker DJ, Le LU. Small pulmonary lesions detected at CT: clinical importance. Radiology 1997; 202:105-110.
      Google Scholar
    • 7 Henschke CI, McCauley DI, Yankelevitz DF, et al. Early Lung Cancer Action Project: overall design and findings from baseline screening. Lancet 1999; 354:99-105.
      MedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 8 Goo JM, Chung MJ, Lee HJ, Im JG. Posterior subpleural nodules in patients with underlying malignancies: value of the prone computed tomography. J Comput Assist Tomogr 2003; 27:274-278.
      MedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 9 Harris KM, Adams H, Lloyd DC, Harvey DJ. The effect on apparent size of simulated pulmonary nodules of using three standard CT window settings. Clin Radiol 1993; 47:241-244.
      MedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 10 Erasmus JJ, Gladish GW, Broemeling L, et al. Interobserver and intraobserver variability in measurement of non-small-cell carcinoma lung lesions: implications for assessment of tumor response. J Clin Oncol 2003; 21:2574-2582.
      MedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 11 Yankelevitz DF, Gupta R, Zhao B, Henschke CI. Small pulmonary nodules: evaluation with repeat CT—preliminary experience. Radiology 1999; 212:561-566.
      Google Scholar
    • 12 Yankelevitz DF, Reeves AP, Kostis WJ, Zhao B, Henschke CI. Small pulmonary nodules: volumetric determined growth rates based on CT evaluation. Radiology 2000; 217:251-256.
      Google Scholar
    • 13 Ko JP, Rusinek H, Jacobs EL, et al. Small pulmonary nodules: volume measurement at chest CT—phantom study. Radiology 2003; 228:864-870.
      Google Scholar
    • 14 Winer-Muram HT, Jennings SG, Meyer CA, et al. Effect of varying CT section width on volumetric measurement of lung tumors and application of compensatory equations. Radiology 2003; 229:184-194.
      Google Scholar
    • 15 Kostis WJ, Reeves AP, Yankelevitz DF, Henschke CI. Three-dimensional segmentation and growth-rate estimation of small pulmonary nodules in helical CT images. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 2003; 22:1259-1274.
      MedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 16 Zhao B, Yankelevitz D, Reeves A, Henschke CI. Two-dimensional multi-criterion segmentation of pulmonary nodules on helical CT images. Med Phys 1999; 26:889-895.
      MedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 17 Zerhouni EA, Spivey JF, Morgan RH, Leo FP, Stitik FP, Siegelman SS. Factors influencing quantitative CT measurements of solitary pulmonary nodules. J Comput Assist Tomogr 1982; 6:1075-1087.
      MedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 18 Im JG, Gamsu G, Gordon D, et al. CT densitometry of pulmonary nodules in a frozen human thorax. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1988; 150:61-66.
      MedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 19 Van Hoe L, Haven F, Bellon E, et al. Factors influencing the accuracy of volume measurements in spiral CT: a phantom study. J Comput Assist Tomogr 1997; 21:332-338.
      MedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 20 Austin JH, Muller NL, Friedman PJ, et al. Glossary of terms for CT of the lungs: recommendations of the Nomenclature Committee of the Fleischner Society. Radiology 1996; 200:327-331.
      Google Scholar
    • 21 Kleinbaum DG, Kupper LL, Muller KE. Applied regression analysis and other multivariate methods 2nd ed. Boston, Mass: PWS-Kent, 1987; 220.
      Google Scholar
    • 22 Baxter BS, Sorenson JA. Factors affecting the measurement of size and CT number in computed tomography. Invest Radiol 1981; 16:337-341.
      MedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 23 Kakinuma R, Ohmatsu H, Kaneko M, et al. Progression of focal pure ground-glass opacity detected by low-dose helical computed tomography screening for lung cancer. J Comput Assist Tomogr 2004; 28:17-23.
      MedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 24 Mahesh M. Search for isotropic resolution in CT from conventional through multiple-row detector. RadioGraphics 2002; 22:949-962.
      Google Scholar
    • 25 Aberle DR, Gamsu G, Henschke CI, Naidich DP, Swensen SJ. A consensus statement of the Society of Thoracic Radiology: screening for lung cancer with helical computed tomography. J Thorac Imaging 2001; 16:65-68.
      MedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 26 Rubin GD. Data explosion: the challenge of multidetector-row CT. Eur J Radiol 2000; 36:74-80.
      MedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 27 Brink JA, Wang G, McFarland EG. Optimal section spacing in single-detector helical CT. Radiology 2000; 214:575-578.
      Google Scholar

    Article History

    Published in print: June 2005