Radiologia III, Policlinico S. Orsola-Malpighi, Bologna, Italy.
Radiol Med. 2010 Apr;115(3):403-12. doi: 10.1007/s11547-010-0511-6. Epub 2010 Jan 15.
This study was done to evaluate the variability of semiautomated volume measurements of solid pulmonary nodules between two different versions of the same volumetric software.
The volumes of 100 solid intraparenchymal nodules (mean volume 88.10 mm(3); range 7.36-595.25 mm(3)) studied with the same multidetector computed tomography (MDCT) protocol were determined using two different versions of the same volumetric software (LungCARE 2006G and LungCARE 2007S). The 2006G version is based on a single-segmentation algorithm, whereas the newer version features two algorithms: SmallSizeNodule and AllSizeNodule. The results obtained with the 2006G version were compared with those of the 2007S version with the SmallSizeNodule algorithm, as recommended by the user manual. In addition, we compared the volumetric measurements obtained by the two different algorithms of the 2007S version.
The 2006G version and the 2007S version with the SmallSizeNodule algorithm agreed in only two of 100 cases and showed a mean variability of 1.66% (range 0%-8.78%). A more significant volumetric discrepancy was observed between the two different algorithms of the 2007S version, with the AllSizeNodule algorithm providing on average larger volumes (mean variability 71.08%; range 6.02%-218.80%) than SmallSizeNodule. Volume discrepancies were more pronounced in the subgroups of smaller nodules in all comparisons.
There is variability also in the results provided by different versions of the same volumetric software, and this may affect the calculation of the nodule-doubling time. Computer-aided assessment of the growth of lung nodules should always be performed using the same version of volumetric software and the same segmentation algorithm.
本研究旨在评估同一容积软件的两个不同版本之间对实性肺结节半自动化体积测量的可变性。
使用相同的多排螺旋 CT(MDCT)方案对 100 个实性肺内结节(平均体积 88.10mm³;范围 7.36-595.25mm³)进行研究,使用两种不同版本的同一容积软件(LungCARE 2006G 和 LungCARE 2007S)确定其体积。2006G 版本基于单一分割算法,而更新的版本具有两种算法:SmallSizeNodule 和 AllSizeNodule。按照用户手册的建议,将 2006G 版本的结果与 2007S 版本的 SmallSizeNodule 算法的结果进行比较。此外,我们还比较了 2007S 版本的两种不同算法的体积测量结果。
2006G 版本和 2007S 版本的 SmallSizeNodule 算法在 100 个病例中仅有两个病例一致,显示出 1.66%(范围 0%-8.78%)的平均可变性。在 2007S 版本的两种不同算法之间观察到更大的体积差异,AllSizeNodule 算法平均提供的体积更大(平均可变性 71.08%;范围 6.02%-218.80%)。在所有比较中,较小结节亚组的体积差异更为明显。
即使是同一容积软件的不同版本,其结果也存在可变性,这可能会影响到结节倍增时间的计算。肺结节生长的计算机辅助评估应始终使用相同版本的容积软件和相同的分割算法进行。