Department of Radiology, Gentofte Hospital, Copenhagen University, Hellerup, Denmark.
Eur Radiol. 2010 Aug;20(8):1878-85. doi: 10.1007/s00330-010-1749-z. Epub 2010 Mar 20.
We examined the reproducibility of lung nodule volumetry software that offers three different volumetry algorithms.
In a lung cancer screening trial, 188 baseline nodules >5 mm were identified. Including follow-ups, these nodules formed a study-set of 545 nodules. Nodules were independently double read by two readers using commercially available volumetry software. The software offers readers three different analysing algorithms. We compared the inter-observer variability of nodule volumetry when the readers used the same and different algorithms.
Both readers were able to correctly segment and measure 72% of nodules. In 80% of these cases, the readers chose the same algorithm. When readers used the same algorithm, exactly the same volume was measured in 50% of readings and a difference of >25% was observed in 4%. When the readers used different algorithms, 83% of measurements showed a difference of >25%.
Modern volumetric software failed to correctly segment a high number of screen detected nodules. While choosing a different algorithm can yield better segmentation of a lung nodule, reproducibility of volumetric measurements deteriorates substantially when different algorithms were used. It is crucial even in the same software package to choose identical parameters for follow-up.
我们研究了提供三种不同体积算法的肺结节体积测量软件的可重复性。
在一项肺癌筛查试验中,共确定了 188 个>5 毫米的基线结节。包括随访在内,这些结节构成了一个由 545 个结节组成的研究集。两名读者使用市售的体积测量软件独立对结节进行双次读取。该软件为读者提供了三种不同的分析算法。我们比较了读者使用相同和不同算法时肺结节体积测量的观察者间可变性。
两位读者均能正确地对 72%的结节进行分割和测量。在这些情况下,80%的读者选择了相同的算法。当读者使用相同的算法时,在 50%的读数中测量到的体积完全相同,而在 4%的读数中测量到的体积差异>25%。当读者使用不同的算法时,83%的测量结果显示差异>25%。
现代体积测量软件未能正确地分割大量的筛查检测到的结节。虽然选择不同的算法可以更好地分割肺结节,但当使用不同的算法时,体积测量的可重复性会大大降低。即使在同一个软件包中,为了进行随访,选择相同的参数也很关键。