This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Purchase Article View Shopping Cart Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a colleague Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Save to my personal folders Download to citation manager Rights & Permissions Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Schwartz, L. H. Articles by Panicek, D. M. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Schwartz, L. H. Articles by Panicek, D. M. Social Bookmarking                            What's this?

Evaluation of Tumor Measurements in Oncology: Use of Film-Based and Electronic Techniques

From the Departments of Radiology and Medical Physics, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, and Weill Medical College at Cornell University, New York, NY, and Bioimaging Technologies, West Trenton, NJ.

Address reprint requests to Lawrence H. Schwartz, MD, Department of Radiology, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, 1275 York Ave, New York, NY 10021-6007; email schwartz{at}msucc.org

PURPOSE: To evaluate the variability in bidimensional computed tomography (CT) measurements obtained of actual tumors and of tumor phantoms by use of three measurement techniques: hand-held calipers on film, electronic calipers on a workstation, and an autocontour technique on a workstation.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: Three radiologists measured 45 actual tumors (in the lung, liver, and lymph nodes) on CT images, using each of the three techniques. Bidimensional measurements were recorded, and their cross-products calculated. The coefficient of variation was calculated to assess interobserver variability. CT images of 48 phantoms were measured by three radiologists with each of the techniques. In addition to the coefficient of variation, the differences between the cross-product measurements of tumor phantoms themselves and the measurements obtained with each of the techniques were calculated.

RESULTS: The differences between the coefficients of variation were statistically significantly different for the autocontour technique, compared with the other techniques, both for actual tumors and for tumor phantoms. There was no statistically significant difference in the coefficient of variation between measurements obtained with hand-held calipers and electronic calipers. The cross-products for tumor phantoms were 12% less than the actual cross-product when calipers on film were used, 11% less using electronic calipers, and 1% greater using the autocontour technique.

CONCLUSION: Tumor size is obtained more accurately and consistently between readers using an automated autocontour technique than between those using hand-held or electronic calipers. This finding has substantial implications for monitoring tumor therapy in an individual patient, as well as for evaluating the effectiveness of new therapies under development.

CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Facebook    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				B. Zhao, L. P. James, C. S. Moskowitz, P. Guo, M. S. Ginsberg, R. A. Lefkowitz, Y. Qin, G. J. Riely, M. G. Kris, and L. H. Schwartz Evaluating Variability in Tumor Measurements from Same-day Repeat CT Scans of Patients with Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Radiology, July 1, 2009; 252(1): 263 - 272. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				F. Girvin and J. P. Ko Pulmonary Nodules: Detection, Assessment, and CAD Am. J. Roentgenol., October 1, 2008; 191(4): 1057 - 1069. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				C. Suzuki, H. Jacobsson, T. Hatschek, M. R. Torkzad, K. Boden, Y. Eriksson-Alm, E. Berg, H. Fujii, A. Kubo, and L. Blomqvist Radiologic Measurements of Tumor Response to Treatment: Practical Approaches and Limitations RadioGraphics, March 1, 2008; 28(2): 329 - 344. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				C. Beigelman-Aubry, P. Raffy, W. Yang, R. A. Castellino, and P. A. Grenier Computer-Aided Detection of Solid Lung Nodules on Follow-Up MDCT Screening: Evaluation of Detection, Tracking, and Reading Time Am. J. Roentgenol., October 1, 2007; 189(4): 948 - 955. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. Desai, S. Shankar, M. C. Heinrich, J. A. Fletcher, C. D. Fletcher, J. Manola, J. A. Morgan, C. L. Corless, S. George, K. Tuncali, et al. Clonal Evolution of Resistance to Imatinib in Patients with Metastatic Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumors Clin. Cancer Res., September 15, 2007; 13(18): 5398 - 5405. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				B. Zhao, L. H. Schwartz, C. S. Moskowitz, M. S. Ginsberg, N. A. Rizvi, and M. G. Kris Lung Cancer: Computerized Quantification of Tumor Response--Initial Results Radiology, December 1, 2006; 241(3): 892 - 898. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				E. Galanis, J. C. Buckner, M. J. Maurer, R. Sykora, R. Castillo, K. V. Ballman, B. J. Erickson, and for the North central cancer treatment Group Validation of neuroradiologic response assessment in gliomas: Measurement by RECIST, two-dimensional, computer-assisted tumor area, and computer-assisted tumor volume methods Neuro-oncol, April 1, 2006; 8(2): 156 - 165. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. P. Ko, R. Marcus, E. Bomsztyk, J. S. Babb, C. Stefanescu, M. Kaur, D. P. Naidich, and H. Rusinek Effect of blood vessels on measurement of nodule volume in a chest phantom. Radiology, April 1, 2006; 239(1): 79 - 85. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				L. R. Goodman, M. Gulsun, L. Washington, P. G. Nagy, and K. L. Piacsek Inherent Variability of CT Lung Nodule Measurements In Vivo Using Semiautomated Volumetric Measurements. Am. J. Roentgenol., April 1, 2006; 186(4): 989 - 994. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				S. Shankar, E. vanSonnenberg, J. Desai, P. J. DiPiro, A. Van Den Abbeele, and G. D. Demetri Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumor: New Nodule-within-a-Mass Pattern of Recurrence after Partial Response to Imatinib Mesylate Radiology, June 1, 2005; 235(3): 892 - 898. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				B. Zhao, L. H. Schwartz, C. S. Moskowitz, L. Wang, M. S. Ginsberg, C. A. Cooper, L. Jiang, and J. P. Kalaigian Pulmonary Metastases: Effect of CT Section Thickness on Measurement--Initial Experience Radiology, March 1, 2005; 234(3): 934 - 939. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				D. T. Boll, R. C. Gilkeson, T. R. Fleiter, K. A. Blackham, J. L. Duerk, and J. S. Lewin Volumetric Assessment of Pulmonary Nodules with ECG-Gated MDCT Am. J. Roentgenol., November 1, 2004; 183(5): 1217 - 1223. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				L. H. Schwartz, M. Mazumdar, W. Brown, A. Smith, and D. M. Panicek Variability in Response Assessment in Solid Tumors: Effect of Number of Lesions Chosen for Measurement Clin. Cancer Res., October 1, 2003; 9(12): 4318 - 4323. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. P. Ko, H. Rusinek, E. L. Jacobs, J. S. Babb, M. Betke, G. McGuinness, and D. P. Naidich Small Pulmonary Nodules: Volume Measurement at Chest CT--Phantom Study Radiology, September 1, 2003; 228(3): 864 - 870. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. J. Erasmus, G. W. Gladish, L. Broemeling, B. S. Sabloff, M. T. Truong, R. S. Herbst, and R. F. Munden Interobserver and Intraobserver Variability in Measurement of Non-Small-Cell Carcinoma Lung Lesions: Implications for Assessment of Tumor Response J. Clin. Oncol., July 1, 2003; 21(13): 2574 - 2582. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				S. R. Prasad, K. S. Jhaveri, S. Saini, P. F. Hahn, E. F. Halpern, and J. E. Sumner CT Tumor Measurement for Therapeutic Response Assessment: Comparison of Unidimensional, Bidimensional, and Volumetric Techniques—Initial Observations Radiology, November 1, 2002; 225(2): 416 - 419. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				M. P. Mehta, W. R. Shapiro, M. J. Glantz, R. A. Patchell, M. A. Weitzner, C. A. Meyers, C. J. Schultz, W. H. Roa, M. Leibenhaut, J. Ford, et al. Lead-In Phase to Randomized Trial of Motexafin Gadolinium and Whole-Brain Radiation for Patients With Brain Metastases: Centralized Assessment of Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Neurocognitive, and Neurologic End Points J. Clin. Oncol., August 15, 2002; 20(16): 3445 - 3453. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]