Cargando…

肺结节二维与三维体积测量的观察者内重复性比较

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Software oriented three-dimensional (3D) volumetric measurement of pulmonary nodules has been feasible in the follow-up of indeterminate pulmonary nodules, however, its value need a further validation. The purpose of this study is to retrospectively analyze the chest CT dat...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: 中国肺癌杂志编辑部 2014
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6000020/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24758909
http://dx.doi.org/10.3779/j.issn.1009-3419.2014.04.08
_version_ 1783331591936802816
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Software oriented three-dimensional (3D) volumetric measurement of pulmonary nodules has been feasible in the follow-up of indeterminate pulmonary nodules, however, its value need a further validation. The purpose of this study is to retrospectively analyze the chest CT data of patients with pulmonary nodules to compare the intra-observer variability of 3D and two-dimensional (2D) volumetric measurement. METHODS: Eighty-six pulmonary nodules in chest CT scans of 79 subjects were retrospectively analyzed. One radiologist measured the nodules twice with a 7 days interval using 2D and 3D methods respectively. The maximal diameter (X), the perpendicular diameter (Y) on maximal cross sectional area of the nodule and the caudo-cranial diameter (Z) were measured and the volume was calculated by two models: spherical and elliptical model. The 3D measurements were acquired with semi-automated software with manual adjustment on unsatisfied nodule segmentation. Logistic regression analysis was performed to evaluate the effect of nodule location and morphology on 3D nodule segmentation. ANOVA and correlation test were used to evaluate the difference among three methods. Bland-Altman method was applied to quantify the intra-observer variability. RESULTS: Software achieved satisfied segmentation for 86.4% nodules. The irregular and juxtavacular nodules have significantly high odds rations (OR) of unsatisfied segmentation as 4.0, 4.5, respectively. The volume measured by three method was significantly different (F=6.5, P=0.012), while the repeated measurements did not led to significant difference (F=1.813, P=0.182). The Spearman correlation efficient between 3D volume and 2D volume with sphere and ellipsoid model was 0.97, 0.88. The 95% limits of agreement of RD between two repeated measurements were -14%-11.6%, -37.7%-39.9% and -39.8%-45.8% for 3D, 2D with elliptical model and spherical model, respectively. CONCLUSION: The 3D volume measurement of pulmonary nodules is more repeatable than 2D volume measurement. Unsatisfied segmentation can occurred on a small number of nodules, especially for irregular and juxtavascular nodules. For these nodules, the measurement of 3D diameters is recommended.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6000020
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2014
publisher 中国肺癌杂志编辑部
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-60000202018-07-06 肺结节二维与三维体积测量的观察者内重复性比较 Zhongguo Fei Ai Za Zhi 临床研究 BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Software oriented three-dimensional (3D) volumetric measurement of pulmonary nodules has been feasible in the follow-up of indeterminate pulmonary nodules, however, its value need a further validation. The purpose of this study is to retrospectively analyze the chest CT data of patients with pulmonary nodules to compare the intra-observer variability of 3D and two-dimensional (2D) volumetric measurement. METHODS: Eighty-six pulmonary nodules in chest CT scans of 79 subjects were retrospectively analyzed. One radiologist measured the nodules twice with a 7 days interval using 2D and 3D methods respectively. The maximal diameter (X), the perpendicular diameter (Y) on maximal cross sectional area of the nodule and the caudo-cranial diameter (Z) were measured and the volume was calculated by two models: spherical and elliptical model. The 3D measurements were acquired with semi-automated software with manual adjustment on unsatisfied nodule segmentation. Logistic regression analysis was performed to evaluate the effect of nodule location and morphology on 3D nodule segmentation. ANOVA and correlation test were used to evaluate the difference among three methods. Bland-Altman method was applied to quantify the intra-observer variability. RESULTS: Software achieved satisfied segmentation for 86.4% nodules. The irregular and juxtavacular nodules have significantly high odds rations (OR) of unsatisfied segmentation as 4.0, 4.5, respectively. The volume measured by three method was significantly different (F=6.5, P=0.012), while the repeated measurements did not led to significant difference (F=1.813, P=0.182). The Spearman correlation efficient between 3D volume and 2D volume with sphere and ellipsoid model was 0.97, 0.88. The 95% limits of agreement of RD between two repeated measurements were -14%-11.6%, -37.7%-39.9% and -39.8%-45.8% for 3D, 2D with elliptical model and spherical model, respectively. CONCLUSION: The 3D volume measurement of pulmonary nodules is more repeatable than 2D volume measurement. Unsatisfied segmentation can occurred on a small number of nodules, especially for irregular and juxtavascular nodules. For these nodules, the measurement of 3D diameters is recommended. 中国肺癌杂志编辑部 2014-04-20 /pmc/articles/PMC6000020/ /pubmed/24758909 http://dx.doi.org/10.3779/j.issn.1009-3419.2014.04.08 Text en 版权所有©《中国肺癌杂志》编辑部2014 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 3.0) License. See: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/
spellingShingle 临床研究
肺结节二维与三维体积测量的观察者内重复性比较
title 肺结节二维与三维体积测量的观察者内重复性比较
title_full 肺结节二维与三维体积测量的观察者内重复性比较
title_fullStr 肺结节二维与三维体积测量的观察者内重复性比较
title_full_unstemmed 肺结节二维与三维体积测量的观察者内重复性比较
title_short 肺结节二维与三维体积测量的观察者内重复性比较
title_sort 肺结节二维与三维体积测量的观察者内重复性比较
topic 临床研究
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6000020/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24758909
http://dx.doi.org/10.3779/j.issn.1009-3419.2014.04.08
work_keys_str_mv AT fèijiéjiéèrwéiyǔsānwéitǐjīcèliàngdeguāncházhěnèizhòngfùxìngbǐjiào
AT fèijiéjiéèrwéiyǔsānwéitǐjīcèliàngdeguāncházhěnèizhòngfùxìngbǐjiào
AT fèijiéjiéèrwéiyǔsānwéitǐjīcèliàngdeguāncházhěnèizhòngfùxìngbǐjiào
AT fèijiéjiéèrwéiyǔsānwéitǐjīcèliàngdeguāncházhěnèizhòngfùxìngbǐjiào
AT fèijiéjiéèrwéiyǔsānwéitǐjīcèliàngdeguāncházhěnèizhòngfùxìngbǐjiào
AT fèijiéjiéèrwéiyǔsānwéitǐjīcèliàngdeguāncházhěnèizhòngfùxìngbǐjiào
AT fèijiéjiéèrwéiyǔsānwéitǐjīcèliàngdeguāncházhěnèizhòngfùxìngbǐjiào