Small Pulmonary Nodules: Volume Measurement at Chest CT—Phantom Study

References

• 1 Zerhouni EA, Stitik FP, Siegelman SS, et al. CT of the pulmonary nodule: a cooperative study. Radiology 1986; 160:319-327.
  Google Scholar
• 2 Klein JS, Salomon G, Stewart EA. Transthoracic needle biopsy with a coaxially placed 20-gauge automated cutting needle: results in 122 patients. Radiology 1996; 198:715-720.
  Google Scholar
• 3 Swensen SJ. Functional CT: lung nodule evaluation. RadioGraphics 2000; 20:1178-1181.
  Google Scholar
• 4 Patz EF, Lowe VJ, Hoffman JM, et al. Focal pulmonary abnormalities: evaluation with F-18 fluorodeoxyglucose PET scanning. Radiology 1993; 188:487-490.
  Google Scholar
• 5 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.
  Medline Google 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 Siegelman SS, Khouri NF, Leo FP, Fishman EK, Braverman RM, Zerhouni EA. Solitary pulmonary nodules: CT assessment. Radiology 1986; 160:307-312.
  Google Scholar
• 8 Zwirewich CV, Vedal S, Miller RR, Muller NL. Solitary pulmonary nodule: high-resolution CT and radiologic-pathologic correlation. Radiology 1991; 179:469-476.
  Google Scholar
• 9 Nathan MH, Collins VP, Adams RA. Growth rates in benign and malignant pulmonary nodules. Radiology 1962; 79:221-231.
  Google Scholar
• 10 Weiss W. Peripheral measurable bronchogenic carcinoma: growth rate and period of risk after therapy. Am Rev Respir Dis 1971; 103:198-208.
  Medline Google Scholar
• 11 Aoki T, Nakata H, Watanabe H, et al. Evolution of peripheral lung adenocarcinomas: CT findings correlated with histology and tumor doubling time. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2000; 174:763-768.
  Medline Google Scholar
• 12 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
• 13 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.
  Medline Google Scholar
• 14 Wormanns D, Diederich S, Lentschig MG, Winter F, Heindel W. Spiral CT of pulmonary nodules: interobserver variation in assessment of lesion size. Eur Radiol 2000; 10:710-713.
  Medline Google Scholar
• 15 Yankelevitz DF, Gupta R, Zhao B, Henschke CI. Small pulmonary nodules: evaluation with repeat CT—preliminary experience. Radiology 1999; 212:561-566.
  Google Scholar
• 16 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
• 17 Reeves AP, Kostis WJ, Yankelevitz DF, Henschke CI. Analysis of small pulmonary nodules without explicit segmentation of CT images (abstr). Radiology 2000; 217(P):243.
  Google Scholar
• 18 Naidich DP, Marshall CH, Gribbin C, Arams RS, McCauley DI. Low-dose CT of the lungs: preliminary observations. Radiology 1990; 175:729-731.
  Google Scholar
• 19 Itoh S, Ikeda M, Arahata S, et al. Lung cancer screening: minimum tube current required for helical CT. Radiology 2000; 215:175-183.
  Google Scholar
• 20 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.
  Medline Google Scholar
• 21 McCullough EC, Morin RL. CT-number variability in thoracic geometry. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1983; 141:135-140.
  Medline Google Scholar
• 22 Zerhouni EA, Boukadoum M, Siddiky MA, et al. A standard phantom for quantitative CT analysis of pulmonary nodules. Radiology 1983; 149:767-773.
  Google Scholar
• 23 Rusinek H, Naidich DP, McGuinness G, et al. Pulmonary nodule detection: low-dose versus conventional CT. Radiology 1998; 209:243-249.
  Google Scholar
• 24 Fleiss JL. The design and analysis of clinical experiments New York, NY: Wiley, 1986.
  Google Scholar
• 25 Boiselle PM, Ernst A, Karp DD. Lung cancer detection in the 21st century: potential contributions and challenges of emerging technologies. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2000; 175:1215-1221.
  Medline Google Scholar
• 26 Therasse P, Arbuck SG, Eisenhauer EA, et al. New guidelines to evaluate the response to treatment in solid tumors. European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer, National Cancer Institute of the United States, National Cancer Institute of Canada. J Natl Cancer Inst 2000; 92:205-216.
  Google Scholar
• 27 Joe BN, Fukui MB, Meltzer CC, et al. Brain tumor volume measurement: comparison of manual and semiautomated methods. Radiology 1999; 212:811-816.
  Google Scholar
• 28 Yankelevitz DF, Henschke CI. Derivation for relating calcification and size in small pulmonary nodules. Clin Imaging 1998; 22:1-6.
  Medline Google Scholar
• 29 Swensen SJ, Jett JR, Sloan JA, et al. Screening for lung cancer with low-dose spiral computed tomography. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2002; 165:508-513.
  Medline Google Scholar
• 30 Diederich S, Wormanns D, Semik M, et al. Screening for early lung cancer with low-dose spiral CT: prevalence in 817 asymptomatic smokers. Radiology 2002; 222:773-781.
  Google Scholar
• 31 Sone S, Li F, Yang ZG, et al. Results of three-year mass screening programme for lung cancer using mobile low-dose spiral computed tomography scanner. Br J Cancer 2001; 84:25-32.
  Medline Google Scholar
• 32 Bushberg JT, Seibert JA, Leidholdt EM, Jr, Boone JM. The essential physics of medical imaging Baltimore, Md: Williams & Wilkins, 1994.
  Google Scholar