"skipMainNavigation"
Search
Quick Search in Journals
Quick Search anywhere
Advanced Search
Radiology
Menu
Previous
Next
Original Research

Effect of Blood Vessels on Measurement of Nodule Volume in a Chest Phantom

Published Online:Apr 1 2006https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2391041453

Abstract

Purpose: To identify, by using a chest phantom, whether vessels that contact lung nodules measuring less than 5 mm in diameter will affect nodule volume assessment.

Materials and Methods: Forty synthetic nodules (20 with ground-glass attenuation and 20 with solid attenuation) that measured less than 5 mm in diameter were placed into a chest phantom either adjacent to (n = 30) or isolated from (n = 10) synthetic vessels. Nodules were imaged by using low-dose (20 mAs) and diagnostic (120 mAs) multi–detector row computed tomography (CT). Nodules that were known to lie in direct contact with vessels were confirmed by visual inspection. Nontargeted 1.25 × 1.00-mm sections were analyzed with a three-dimensional computer-assisted method for measuring nodule volume. A mixed-model analysis of variance was used to examine the influence of several factors (eg, the presence of adjacent vessels; tube current–time product; and nodule attenuation, diameter, and location) on measurement error.

Results: The mean absolute error (MAE) for all nodules adjacent to vessels was 2.3 mm3, which was higher than the MAE for isolated nodules (1.9 mm3) (P < .001). This difference proved significant only for diagnostic CT (2.2 mm3 for nodules adjacent to vessels vs 1.3 mm3 for nodules isolated from vessels) (P < .05). A larger MAE was noted for nodules with ground-glass attenuation (2.3 mm3) versus those with solid attenuation (2.0 mm3), for increasing nodule volume (1.66 mm3 for nodules smaller than 20 mm3 vs 2.83 mm3 for nodules larger than 40 mm3), and for posterior nodule location (P < .05).

Conclusion: The presence of a vessel led to a small yet significant increase in volume error on diagnostic-quality images. This represents less than one-third of the overall error, even for nodules larger than 40 mm3 or approximately 4 mm in diameter. This increase, however, may be more important for smaller nodules with errors of less than 3 mm3.

© RSNA, 2006

References

  • 1 Schwartz LH, Ginsberg MS, DeCorato D, et al. Evaluation of tumor measurements in oncology: use of film-based and electronic techniques. J Clin Oncol 2000; 18: 2179–2184.
    Medline Google Scholar
  • 2 Revel MP, Bissery A, Bienvenu M, Aycard L, Lefort C, Frija G. Are two-dimensional CT measurements of small noncalcified pulmonary nodules reliable? Radiology 2004; 231: 453–458.
    Google Scholar
  • 3 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.
    Medline Google Scholar
  • 4 Yankelevitz DF, Gupta R, Zhao B, Henschke CI. Small pulmonary nodules: evaluation with repeat CT—preliminary experience. Radiology 1999; 212: 561–566.
    Google Scholar
  • 5 Ko JP, Rusinek H, Jacobs E, et al. Volume measurement of small pulmonary nodules on chest CT: a phantom study. Radiology 2003; 228: 864–870.
    Google Scholar
  • 6 Jennings SG, Winer-Muram HT, Tarver RD, Farber MO. Lung tumor growth: assessment with CT—comparison of diameter and cross-sectional area with volume measurements. Radiology 2004; 231: 866–871.
    Google Scholar
  • 7 Yankelevitz DF, Reeves AP, Kostis WJ, Zhao B, Henschke CI. Small pulmonary nodules: volumetrically determined growth rates based on CT evaluation. Radiology 2000; 217: 251–256.
    Google Scholar
  • 8 Revel MP, Lefort C, Bissery A, et al. Pulmonary nodules: preliminary experience with three-dimensional evaluation. Radiology 2004; 231: 459–466.
    Google Scholar
  • 9 Kostis WJ, Yankelevitz DF, Reeves AP, Fluture SC, Henschke CI. Small pulmonary nodules: reproducibility of three-dimensional volumetric measurement and estimation of time to follow-up CT. Radiology 2004; 231: 446–452.
    Google Scholar
  • 10 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.
    Medline Google Scholar
  • 11 Zhao B, Yankelevitz D, Reeves A, Henschke C. Two-dimensional multi-criterion segmentation of pulmonary nodules on helical CT images. Med Phys 1999; 26: 889–895.
    Medline Google Scholar
  • 12 Beer AJ, Kohl G, Schaller S, Rummeny EJ. Automated volumetry of small pulmonary nodules with MSCT: influence of nodule-shape, scan- and reconstruction-parameters on reproducibility [abstr]. Radiology 2002; 225(P): 255–256.
    Google Scholar
  • 13 Fraser RS, Muller NL, Colman N, Pare PD. Fraser and Pare's diagnosis of diseases of the chest. Philadelphia, Pa: Saunders, 1999.
    Google Scholar
  • 14 Zhao B, Reeves AP, Yankelevitz DF, Henschke CI. Three-dimensional multicriterion automatic segmentation of pulmonary nodules of helical computed tomography images. Opt Eng 1999; 38: 1340–1347.
    Google Scholar
  • 15 McCullough EC, Morin RL. CT-number variability in thoracic geometry. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1983; 141: 135–140.
    Medline Google Scholar

Article History

Published in print: 2006