Our findings will help reveal variations in the unidimensional, bidimensional, and volumetric measurements on modern CT scans and thus be valuable in detecting biologically relevant tumor changes in the assessment of therapy response in non–small cell lung cancer.

Purpose

To evaluate the variability of tumor unidimensional, bidimensional, and volumetric measurements on same-day repeat computed tomographic (CT) scans in patients with non–small cell lung cancer.

Materials and Methods

This HIPAA–compliant study was approved by the institutional review board, with informed patient consent. Thirty-two patients with non–small cell lung cancer, each of whom underwent two CT scans of the chest within 15 minutes by using the same imaging protocol, were included in this study. Three radiologists independently measured the two greatest diameters of each lesion on both scans and, during another session, measured the same tumors on the first scan. In a separate analysis, computer software was applied to assist in the calculation of the two greatest diameters and the volume of each lesion on both scans. Concordance correlation coefficients (CCCs) and Bland-Altman plots were used to assess the agreements between the measurements of the two repeat scans (reproducibility) and between the two repeat readings of the same scan (repeatability).

Results

The reproducibility and repeatability of the three radiologists' measurements were high (all CCCs, ≥0.96). The reproducibility of the computer-aided measurements was even higher (all CCCs, 1.00). The 95% limits of agreements for the computer-aided unidimensional, bidimensional, and volumetric measurements on two repeat scans were (−7.3%, 6.2%), (−17.6%, 19.8%), and (−12.1%, 13.4%), respectively.

Conclusion

Chest CT scans are well reproducible. Changes in unidimensional lesion size of 8% or greater exceed the measurement variability of the computer method and can be considered significant when estimating the outcome of therapy in a patient.

© RSNA, 2009

References

  • 1 World Health Organization. WHO handbook for reporting results of cancer treatment. Offset publication no. 48. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization, 1979. Google Scholar
  • 2 Miller AB , Hogestraeten B , Staquet M , Winkler A Reporting results of cancer treatment. Cancer 1981;47:207–214. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Therasse P , Arbuck SG , Eisenhauer EA , et al. New guidelines to evaluate response to treatment in solid tumors. J Natl Cancer Inst 2000;92:205–216. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Zhao B , Schwartz LH , Moskowitz C , Ginsberg MS , Rizvi NA , Kris MG Computerized quantification of tumor response in lung cancer: initial results. Radiology 2006;241:892–898. LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Winer-Muram HT , Jennings SG , Meyer CA , et al. Effects of varying CT section width on volumetric measurement of lung tumors and application of compensatory equations. Radiology 2003;229:184–194. LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Zhao B , Schwartz HL , Moskowitz C , et al. Effect of CT slice thickness on measurements of pulmonary metastases: initial experience. Radiology 2005;234:934–939. LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Wormanns D , Kohl G , Klotz E , et al. Volumetric measurements of pulmonary nodules at multi-row detector CT: in vivo reproducibility. Eur Radiol 2004;14:86–92. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Goodman LR , Gulsun M , Washington L , Nagy PG , Piacsek KL Inherent variability of CT lung nodule measurements in vivo using semiautomated volumetric measurements. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2006;186:989–994. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Thiesse P , Ollivier L , Di Stefano-Louineau D , et al. Response rate accuracy in oncology trials: reasons for interobserver variability. J Clin Oncol 1997;15:3507–3514. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 10 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. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Erasmus JJ , Gladish GW , Broemeling L , et al. Interobserver and intraobserver variability in measurement of non-small-call carcinoma lung lesions: implications for assessment of tumor response. J Clin Oncol 2003;21:2574–2582. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Hopper KD , Kasales CJ , Van Slyke MA , Schwartz TA , TenHave TR , Jozefiak JA Analysis of interobserver and intraobserver variability in CT tumor measurements. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1996;167:851–854. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Zhao B , Yankelevitz DF , Reeves AP , Henschke CI Two-dimensional segmentation of pulmonary nodules on helical CT images. Med Phys 1999;26:889–895. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Zhao B , Reeves AP , Yankelevitz D , Henschke CI Three-dimensional multi-criterion automatic segmentation of pulmonary nodules of helical CT images. Opt Eng 1999;38:1340–1347. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Lin LI A concordance correlation coefficient to evaluate reproducibility. Biometrics 1989;45:255–268. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Bland JM , Altman DG Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1986;1:307–310. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Barnhart HX , Song J , Haber MJ Assessing intra, inter, and total agreement with replicated readings. Stat Med 2005;24:1371–1384. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 18 James K , Eisenhauer E , Christian M , et al. Measuring response in solid tumors: unidimensional versus bidimensional measurement. J Natl Cancer Inst 1999;91:523–528. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Schwartz LH , Colville JA , Ginsberg MS , et al. Measuring tumor response and shape change on CT: esophageal cancer as a paradigm. Ann Oncol 2006;17:1018–1023. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Minn H , Zasadny KR , Quint LE , Wahl RL Lung cancer: reproducibility of quantitative measurements for evaluating 2-[F-18]-fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose uptake at PET. Radiology 1995;196:167–173. LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Weber WA , Ziegler SI , Thoedtmann R , Hanauske AR , Schwaiger M Reproducibility of metabolic measurements in malignant tumors using FDG PET. J Nucl Med 1999;40:1771–1777. MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Galbraith SM , Lodge MA , Taylor NJ , et al. Reproducibility of dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI in human muscle and tumors: comparison of quantitative and semi-quantitative analysis. NMR Biomed 2002;15:132–142. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Padhani AR , Hayes C , Landau S , Leach MO Reproducibility of quantitative dynamic MRI of normal human tissues. NMR Biomed 2002;15:143–153. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar

Article History

Received September 5, 2008; revision requested October 29; revision received January 13, 2009; accepted February 13; final version accepted March 3.
Published in print: July 2009