Skip to main content
Top
Published in: European Radiology 11/2014

01-11-2014 | Oncology

Comparison of manual and semi-automatic measuring techniques in MSCT scans of patients with lymphoma: a multicentre study

Authors: A. J. Höink, J. Weßling, R. Koch, C. Schülke, N. Kohlhase, L. Wassenaar, R. M. Mesters, M. D’Anastasi, M. Fabel, A. Wulff, D. Pinto dos Santos, A. Kießling, A. Graser, V. Dicken, M. Karpitschka, L. Bornemann, W. Heindel, B. Buerke

Published in: European Radiology | Issue 11/2014

Login to get access

Abstract

Objectives

Multicentre evaluation of the precision of semi-automatic 2D/3D measurements in comparison to manual, linear measurements of lymph nodes regarding their inter-observer variability in multi-slice CT (MSCT) of patients with lymphoma.

Methods

MSCT data of 63 patients were interpreted before and after chemotherapy by one/tworadiologists in five university hospitals. In 307 lymph nodes, short (SAD)/long (LAD) axis diameter and WHO area were determined manually and semi-automatically. Volume was solely calculated semi-automatically. To determine the precision of the individual parameters, a mean was calculated for every lymph node/parameter. Deviation of the measured parameters from this mean was evaluated separately. Statistical analysis entailed intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) and Kruskal–Wallis tests.

Results

Median relative deviations of semi-automatic parameters were smaller than deviations of manually assessed parameters, e.g. semi-automatic SAD 5.3 vs. manual 6.5 %. Median variations among different study sites were smaller if the measurement was conducted semi-automatically, e. g. manual LAD 5.7/4.2 % vs. semi-automatic 3.4/3.4 %. Semi-automatic volumetry was superior to the other parameters (2.8 %).

Conclusions

Semi-automatic determination of different lymph node parameters is (compared to manually assessed parameters) associated with a slightly greater precision and a marginally lower inter-observer variability. These results are with regard to the increasing mobility of patients among different medical centres and in relation to the quality management of multicentre trials of importance.

Key Points

In a multicentre setting, semi-automatic measurements are more accurate than manual assessments.
Lymph node volumetry outperforms all other semi-automaticallyand manually performed measurements.
Use of semi-automatic lymph node analyses can reduce the inter-observer variability.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Eisenhauer EA, Therasse P, Bogaerts J etal (2009) New response evaluation criteria in solid tumours: revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1). Eur J Cancer 45:228–247 Eisenhauer EA, Therasse P, Bogaerts J etal (2009) New response evaluation criteria in solid tumours: revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1). Eur J Cancer 45:228–247
2.
go back to reference Cheson B, Horning SJ, Coiffier B etal (1999) Report of an international workshop to standardize response criteria for non-Hodgkin’s lymphomas. NCI Sponsored International Working Group. J Clin Oncol 17:1244–1253 Cheson B, Horning SJ, Coiffier B etal (1999) Report of an international workshop to standardize response criteria for non-Hodgkin’s lymphomas. NCI Sponsored International Working Group. J Clin Oncol 17:1244–1253
3.
go back to reference Assouline S, Meyer RM, Infante-Rivard C etal (2007) Development of adapted RECIST criteria to assess response in lymphoma and their comparison to the International Workshop Criteria. Leuk Lymphoma 48:513–520 Assouline S, Meyer RM, Infante-Rivard C etal (2007) Development of adapted RECIST criteria to assess response in lymphoma and their comparison to the International Workshop Criteria. Leuk Lymphoma 48:513–520
4.
go back to reference Jaffe TA, Wickersham NW, Sullivan DC (2010) Quantitative imaging in oncology patients: Part 1, radiology practice patterns at major US cancer centers. AJR Am J Roentgenol 195:101–106PubMedCrossRef Jaffe TA, Wickersham NW, Sullivan DC (2010) Quantitative imaging in oncology patients: Part 1, radiology practice patterns at major US cancer centers. AJR Am J Roentgenol 195:101–106PubMedCrossRef
5.
go back to reference van Persijn, van Meerten EL, Gelderblom H, Bloem JL (2010) RECIST revised: implications for the radiologist. A review article on the modified RECIST guideline. Eur Radiol 20:1456–1467CrossRef van Persijn, van Meerten EL, Gelderblom H, Bloem JL (2010) RECIST revised: implications for the radiologist. A review article on the modified RECIST guideline. Eur Radiol 20:1456–1467CrossRef
6.
go back to reference Miller AB, Hoogstraten B, Staguet M, Winkler A (1981) Reporting results of cancer treatment. Cancer 47:207–214PubMedCrossRef Miller AB, Hoogstraten B, Staguet M, Winkler A (1981) Reporting results of cancer treatment. Cancer 47:207–214PubMedCrossRef
7.
go back to reference Weßling J, Puesken M, Koch R etal (2012) MSCT follow-up in malignant lymphoma: comparison of manual linear measurements with semi-automated lymph node analysis for therapy response classification. Röfo 184:795–804 Weßling J, Puesken M, Koch R etal (2012) MSCT follow-up in malignant lymphoma: comparison of manual linear measurements with semi-automated lymph node analysis for therapy response classification. Röfo 184:795–804
8.
go back to reference Buerke B, Gerss J, Puesken M, Weckesser M, Heindel W, Wessling J (2011) Usefulness of semi-automatic volumetry compared to established linear measurements in predicting lymph node metastases in MSCT. Acta Radiol 52:540–546 Buerke B, Gerss J, Puesken M, Weckesser M, Heindel W, Wessling J (2011) Usefulness of semi-automatic volumetry compared to established linear measurements in predicting lymph node metastases in MSCT. Acta Radiol 52:540–546
9.
go back to reference Buerke B, Puesken M, Müter S etal (2010) Measurement accuracy and reproducibility of semiautomated metric and volumetric lymph node analysis in MDCT. AJR Am J Roentgenol 195:979–985 Buerke B, Puesken M, Müter S etal (2010) Measurement accuracy and reproducibility of semiautomated metric and volumetric lymph node analysis in MDCT. AJR Am J Roentgenol 195:979–985
10.
go back to reference Buerke B, Puesken M, Beyer F etal (2010) Semiautomatic lymph node segmentation in multislice computed tomography: impact of slice thickness on segmentation quality, measurement precision, and interobserver variability. Investig Radiol 45:82–88 Buerke B, Puesken M, Beyer F etal (2010) Semiautomatic lymph node segmentation in multislice computed tomography: impact of slice thickness on segmentation quality, measurement precision, and interobserver variability. Investig Radiol 45:82–88
11.
go back to reference Kuhnigk JM, Dicken V, Bornemann L etal (2006) Morphological segmentation and partial volume analysis for volumetry of solid pulmonary lesions in thoracic CT. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 25:417–434 Kuhnigk JM, Dicken V, Bornemann L etal (2006) Morphological segmentation and partial volume analysis for volumetry of solid pulmonary lesions in thoracic CT. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 25:417–434
12.
go back to reference James K, Eisenhauer E, Christian M etal (1999) Measuring response in solid tumors: unidimensional versus bidimensional measurement. J Natl Cancer Inst 91:523–528 James K, Eisenhauer E, Christian M etal (1999) Measuring response in solid tumors: unidimensional versus bidimensional measurement. J Natl Cancer Inst 91:523–528
13.
go back to reference Fabel M, von Tengg-Kobligk H, Giesel FL etal (2008) Semi-automated volumetric analysis of lymph node metastases in patients with malignant melanoma stage III/IV – a feasibility study. Eur Radiol 18:1114–1122 Fabel M, von Tengg-Kobligk H, Giesel FL etal (2008) Semi-automated volumetric analysis of lymph node metastases in patients with malignant melanoma stage III/IV – a feasibility study. Eur Radiol 18:1114–1122
14.
go back to reference Zhao B, Schwartz LH, Moskowitz CS, Ginsberg MS, Rizvi NA, Kris MG (2006) Lung cancer: computerized quantification of tumor response – initial results. Radiology 241:892–898PubMedCrossRef Zhao B, Schwartz LH, Moskowitz CS, Ginsberg MS, Rizvi NA, Kris MG (2006) Lung cancer: computerized quantification of tumor response – initial results. Radiology 241:892–898PubMedCrossRef
15.
go back to reference Jaffe TA, Wickersham NW, Sullivan DC (2010) Quantitative imaging in oncology patients: Part 2, oncologists’ opinions and expectations at major US cancer centers. AJR Am J Roentgenol 195:W19–W30PubMedCrossRef Jaffe TA, Wickersham NW, Sullivan DC (2010) Quantitative imaging in oncology patients: Part 2, oncologists’ opinions and expectations at major US cancer centers. AJR Am J Roentgenol 195:W19–W30PubMedCrossRef
16.
go back to reference Wulff AM, Bolte H, Fischer S etal (2012) Lung, liver and lymph node metastases in follow-up MSCT: comprehensive volumetric assessment of lesion size changes. Röfo 184:820–828 Wulff AM, Bolte H, Fischer S etal (2012) Lung, liver and lymph node metastases in follow-up MSCT: comprehensive volumetric assessment of lesion size changes. Röfo 184:820–828
17.
go back to reference Quantitative Imaging Biomarkers Alliance (QIBA) of the Radiological Society of North America (RSNA) (2007) QIBA Mission. Radiological Society of North America (RSNA), Oak Brook (IL), USA. Available via http://rsna.org/QIBA.aspx. Accessed 15 Nov 2013 Quantitative Imaging Biomarkers Alliance (QIBA) of the Radiological Society of North America (RSNA) (2007) QIBA Mission. Radiological Society of North America (RSNA), Oak Brook (IL), USA. Available via http://​rsna.​org/​QIBA.​aspx. Accessed 15 Nov 2013
18.
go back to reference Puesken M, Buerke B, Gerss J etal (2010) Prediction of lymph node manifestations in malignant lymphoma: significant role of volumetric compared with established metric lymph node analysis in multislice computed tomography. J Comput Assist Tomogr 34:564–569 Puesken M, Buerke B, Gerss J etal (2010) Prediction of lymph node manifestations in malignant lymphoma: significant role of volumetric compared with established metric lymph node analysis in multislice computed tomography. J Comput Assist Tomogr 34:564–569
19.
go back to reference Cortes J, Rodriguez J, Diaz-Gonzalez JA etal (2002) Comparison of unidimensional and bidimensional measurements in metastatic non-small cell lung cancer. Br J Cancer 87:158–160 Cortes J, Rodriguez J, Diaz-Gonzalez JA etal (2002) Comparison of unidimensional and bidimensional measurements in metastatic non-small cell lung cancer. Br J Cancer 87:158–160
20.
go back to reference Frank R, Hargreaves R (2003) Clinical biomarkers in drug discovery and development. Nat Rev Drug Discov 2:566–580PubMedCrossRef Frank R, Hargreaves R (2003) Clinical biomarkers in drug discovery and development. Nat Rev Drug Discov 2:566–580PubMedCrossRef
21.
go back to reference Wormanns D, Kohl G, Klotz E etal (2004) Volumetric measurements of pulmonary nodules at multi-row detector CT: invivo reproducibility. Eur Radiol 14:86–92 Wormanns D, Kohl G, Klotz E etal (2004) Volumetric measurements of pulmonary nodules at multi-row detector CT: invivo reproducibility. Eur Radiol 14:86–92
22.
go back to reference McErlean A, Panicek DM, Zabor EC etal (2013) Intra- and interobserver variability in CT measurements in oncology. Radiology 269:451–459 McErlean A, Panicek DM, Zabor EC etal (2013) Intra- and interobserver variability in CT measurements in oncology. Radiology 269:451–459
23.
go back to reference Clarke LP, Croft BS, Nordstrom R, Zhang H, Kelloff G, Tatum J (2009) Quantitative imaging for evaluation of response to cancer therapy. Transl Oncol 2:195–197PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentral Clarke LP, Croft BS, Nordstrom R, Zhang H, Kelloff G, Tatum J (2009) Quantitative imaging for evaluation of response to cancer therapy. Transl Oncol 2:195–197PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentral
Metadata
Title
Comparison of manual and semi-automatic measuring techniques in MSCT scans of patients with lymphoma: a multicentre study
Authors
A. J. Höink
J. Weßling
R. Koch
C. Schülke
N. Kohlhase
L. Wassenaar
R. M. Mesters
M. D’Anastasi
M. Fabel
A. Wulff
D. Pinto dos Santos
A. Kießling
A. Graser
V. Dicken
M. Karpitschka
L. Bornemann
W. Heindel
B. Buerke
Publication date
01-11-2014
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in
European Radiology / Issue 11/2014
Print ISSN: 0938-7994
Electronic ISSN: 1432-1084
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-014-3283-x

Other articles of this Issue 11/2014

European Radiology 11/2014 Go to the issue