Dataset Information

Tumor volume measurement error using computed tomography imaging in a phase II clinical trial in lung cancer.

ABSTRACT: To address the error introduced by computed tomography (CT) scanners when assessing volume and unidimensional measurement of solid tumors, we scanned a precision manufactured pocket phantom simultaneously with patients enrolled in a lung cancer clinical trial. Dedicated software quantified bias and random error in the [Formula: see text], and [Formula: see text] dimensions of a Teflon sphere and also quantified response evaluation criteria in solid tumors and volume measurements using both constant and adaptive thresholding. We found that underestimation bias was essentially the same for [Formula: see text], and [Formula: see text] dimensions using constant thresholding and had similar values for adaptive thresholding. The random error of these length measurements as measured by the standard deviation and coefficient of variation was 0.10 mm (0.65), 0.11 mm (0.71), and 0.59 mm (3.75) for constant thresholding and 0.08 mm (0.51), 0.09 mm (0.56), and 0.58 mm (3.68) for adaptive thresholding, respectively. For random error, however, [Formula: see text] lengths had at least a fivefold higher standard deviation and coefficient of variation than [Formula: see text] and [Formula: see text]. Observed [Formula: see text]-dimension error was especially high for some 8 and 16 slice CT models. Error in CT image formation, in particular, for models with low numbers of detector rows, may be large enough to be misinterpreted as representing either treatment response or disease progression.

SUBMITTER: Henschke CI

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5028411 | biostudies-literature | 2016 Jul

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Tumor volume measurement error using computed tomography imaging in a phase II clinical trial in lung cancer.

Henschke Claudia I CI Yankelevitz David F DF Yip Rowena R Archer Venice V Zahlmann Gudrun G Krishnan Karthik K Helba Brian B Avila Ricardo R

Journal of medical imaging (Bellingham, Wash.) 20160701 3

To address the error introduced by computed tomography (CT) scanners when assessing volume and unidimensional measurement of solid tumors, we scanned a precision manufactured pocket phantom simultaneously with patients enrolled in a lung cancer clinical trial. Dedicated software quantified bias and random error in the [Formula: see text], and [Formula: see text] dimensions of a Teflon sphere and also quantified response evaluation criteria in solid tumors and volume measurements using both const ...[more]

PMID: 27660808

Similar Datasets

Project description:To investigate interobserver delineation variability for gross tumor volumes of primary lung tumors and associated pathologic lymph nodes using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and to compare the results with computed tomography (CT) alone- and positron emission tomography (PET)-CT-based delineations.Seven physicians delineated the tumor volumes of 10 patients for the following scenarios: (1) CT only, (2) PET-CT fusion images registered to CT ("clinical standard"), and (3) postcontrast T1-weighted MRI registered with diffusion-weighted MRI. To compute interobserver variability, the median surface was generated from all observers' contours and used as the reference surface. A physician labeled the interface types (tumor to lung, atelectasis (collapsed lung), hilum, mediastinum, or chest wall) on the median surface. Contoured volumes and bidirectional local distances between individual observers' contours and the reference contour were analyzed.Computed tomography- and MRI-based tumor volumes normalized relative to PET-CT-based volumes were 1.62 ± 0.76 (mean ± standard deviation) and 1.38 ± 0.44, respectively. Volume differences between the imaging modalities were not significant. Between observers, the mean normalized volumes per patient averaged over all patients varied significantly by a factor of 1.6 (MRI) and 2.0 (CT and PET-CT) (P=4.10 × 10-5 to 3.82 × 10-9). The tumor-atelectasis interface had a significantly higher variability than other interfaces for all modalities combined (P=.0006). The interfaces with the smallest uncertainties were tumor-lung (on CT) and tumor-mediastinum (on PET-CT and MRI).Although MRI-based contouring showed overall larger variability than PET-CT, contouring variability depended on the interface type and was not significantly different between modalities, despite the limited observer experience with MRI. Multimodality imaging and combining different imaging characteristics might be the best approach to define the tumor volume most accurately.

Project description:ObjectiveChest computed tomography (CT) imaging is being increasingly used for potential lung donor assessment. However, the efficacy of CT imaging in this setting remains unknown. We hypothesize that chest CT imaging independently affects the decision-making process in donor lung utilization.MethodsWe conducted a retrospective cohort study of all adult donation after brain death donors managed through our local organ procurement organization from June 2011 to November 2016. An experienced thoracic radiologist independently reviewed donor chest CT and chest x-ray images in a blinded, standardized manner to determine the presence of structural lung disease (eg, emphysema, interstitial lung disease [ILD]) and acute abnormalities (eg, traumatic lung injury [TLI]). Distinct models of lung utilization were fit to groups with initial partial pressure of oxygen (iPaO2) ≤300 mm Hg (suboptimal) and iPaO2 >300 mm Hg (optimal).ResultsThe organ procurement organization managed 753 donors during the study period, with a lung utilization rate ([lung donors/all organ donors] × 100) of 36.5% (275 of 753). Four hundred forty-five (59.1%) donors received chest CT imaging, revealing emphysema (13.7%), ILD (2.5%), and TLI (7.2%). In univariate analysis, findings of TLI (odds ratio [OR], 2.23; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.08-4.61) were positively associated with lung utilization, whereas findings of emphysema (OR, 0.18; CI, 0.08-0.40) were negatively associated with utilization. In multivariate analysis, CT findings of emphysema (OR, 0.21; CI 0.08-0.54) remained negatively associated with utilization. No potential donors with CT findings of ILD became lung donors. After controlling for chest x-ray findings, chest CT imaging findings of structural lung disease remained negatively associated with utilization (P = .0001). Lung utilization rate in the suboptimal and optimal iPaO2 populations was 35.1% and 41.4%, respectively, and CT findings of emphysema had a significant association with nonutilization in both groups.ConclusionsIn the evaluation of potential lung donors, chest CT imaging findings of structural lung disease, such as emphysema and ILD, have a significant negative association with lung utilization. Our findings suggest that chest CT imaging might be an important adjunct to conventional lung donor assessment criteria.

Project description:ObjectiveMeasurement of the liver and spleen volumes has clinical implications. Although computed tomography (CT) volumetry is considered to be the most reliable noninvasive method for liver and spleen volume measurement, it has limited application in clinical practice due to its time-consuming segmentation process. We aimed to develop and validate a deep learning algorithm (DLA) for fully automated liver and spleen segmentation using portal venous phase CT images in various liver conditions.Materials and methodsA DLA for liver and spleen segmentation was trained using a development dataset of portal venous CT images from 813 patients. Performance of the DLA was evaluated in two separate test datasets: dataset-1 which included 150 CT examinations in patients with various liver conditions (i.e., healthy liver, fatty liver, chronic liver disease, cirrhosis, and post-hepatectomy) and dataset-2 which included 50 pairs of CT examinations performed at ours and other institutions. The performance of the DLA was evaluated using the dice similarity score (DSS) for segmentation and Bland-Altman 95% limits of agreement (LOA) for measurement of the volumetric indices, which was compared with that of ground truth manual segmentation.ResultsIn test dataset-1, the DLA achieved a mean DSS of 0.973 and 0.974 for liver and spleen segmentation, respectively, with no significant difference in DSS across different liver conditions (p = 0.60 and 0.26 for the liver and spleen, respectively). For the measurement of volumetric indices, the Bland-Altman 95% LOA was -0.17 ± 3.07% for liver volume and -0.56 ± 3.78% for spleen volume. In test dataset-2, DLA performance using CT images obtained at outside institutions and our institution was comparable for liver (DSS, 0.982 vs. 0.983; p = 0.28) and spleen (DSS, 0.969 vs. 0.968; p = 0.41) segmentation.ConclusionThe DLA enabled highly accurate segmentation and volume measurement of the liver and spleen using portal venous phase CT images of patients with various liver conditions.

Project description:Quantification software for coronary calcification is often used to measure abdominal aortic calcification on computed tomography (CT) images. However, there is no evidence substantiating the reliability and accuracy of these tools in this setting. Differences in coronary and abdominal CT acquisition and presence of intravascular contrast may affect the results of these tools. Therefore, this study investigates the effects of CT acquisition parameters and iodine contrast on automated quantification of aortic calcium on CT.Calcium scores, provided in volume and mass, were assessed by automated calcium quantification software on CT scans. First, differences in calcium scores between the abdominal and coronary CT scanning protocols were assessed by imaging a thorax phantom containing calcifications of 9 metrical variations. Second, aortic calcification was quantified in 50 unenhanced and contrast-enhanced clinical abdominal CT scans at a calcification threshold of 299 Hounsfield Units (HU). Also, the lowest possible HU threshold for calcifications was calculated per individual patient and compared to a 130 HU threshold between contrast-enhanced and unenhanced CT images, respectively.No significant differences in volume and mass scores between the abdominal and the coronary CT protocol were found. However, volume and mass of all calcifications were overestimated compared to the physical volume and mass (volume range: 0-649%; mass range: 0-2619%). In comparing unenhanced versus contrast-enhanced CT images showed significant volume differences for both thresholds, as well as for mass differences for the 130 vs patient-specific threshold (230 ± 22.6 HU).Calcification scoring on CT angiography tends to grossly overestimate volume and mass suggesting a low accuracy and reliability. These are reduced further by interference of intravascular contrast. Future studies applying calcium quantification tools on CT angiography imaging should acknowledge these issues and apply corrective measures to ensure the validity of their outcomes.

Dataset Information

Tumor volume measurement error using computed tomography imaging in a phase II clinical trial in lung cancer.

Publications

Tumor volume measurement error using computed tomography imaging in a phase II clinical trial in lung cancer.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure