Cargando…

Intra- and Inter-Reader Variations in Lung Nodule Measurements: Influences of Nodule Size, Location, and Observers

(1) Background: Accurate measurement of lung-nodule size is necessary, but whether a three-dimensional volume measurement is better or more reliable than the one-dimensional method is still unclear. This study aimed to investigate the intra- and inter-reader variations according to nodule type, size...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Chen, Hong, Huang, Haozhe, Zhang, Jianye, Wang, Xuexue, Han, Mengyang, Ding, Chanjun, Wang, Jinhong
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: MDPI 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9600531/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36292008
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics12102319
_version_ 1784816866052538368
author Chen, Hong
Huang, Haozhe
Zhang, Jianye
Wang, Xuexue
Han, Mengyang
Ding, Chanjun
Wang, Jinhong
author_facet Chen, Hong
Huang, Haozhe
Zhang, Jianye
Wang, Xuexue
Han, Mengyang
Ding, Chanjun
Wang, Jinhong
author_sort Chen, Hong
collection PubMed
description (1) Background: Accurate measurement of lung-nodule size is necessary, but whether a three-dimensional volume measurement is better or more reliable than the one-dimensional method is still unclear. This study aimed to investigate the intra- and inter-reader variations according to nodule type, size, three-dimensional volume measurements, and one-dimensional linear measurements. (2) Methods: This retrospective study included computed tomography (CT) examinations of lung nodules and volume measurements performed from October to December 2016. Two radiologists independently performed all measurements. Intra-class correlation coefficients (ICC) and Bland-Altman plots were used for analysis. (3) Results: The overall variability in the calculated volume was larger than when using the semiautomatic volume measurement. Nodules <6 mm tended to have larger variability than nodules ≥6 mm in both one-dimensional and calculated volume measurements. The isolated type showed smaller variability in both intra- and inter-reader comparisons. The juxta-vascular type showed the largest variability in both one-dimensional and calculated volume measurements. The variability was decreased when using the 3D volume semiautomated software. (4) Conclusions: The present study suggests that 3D semiautomatic volume measurements showed lower variability than the calculated volume measurement. Nodule size and location influence measurement variability. The intra- and inter-reader variabilities in nodule volume measurement were considerable.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9600531
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher MDPI
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-96005312022-10-27 Intra- and Inter-Reader Variations in Lung Nodule Measurements: Influences of Nodule Size, Location, and Observers Chen, Hong Huang, Haozhe Zhang, Jianye Wang, Xuexue Han, Mengyang Ding, Chanjun Wang, Jinhong Diagnostics (Basel) Article (1) Background: Accurate measurement of lung-nodule size is necessary, but whether a three-dimensional volume measurement is better or more reliable than the one-dimensional method is still unclear. This study aimed to investigate the intra- and inter-reader variations according to nodule type, size, three-dimensional volume measurements, and one-dimensional linear measurements. (2) Methods: This retrospective study included computed tomography (CT) examinations of lung nodules and volume measurements performed from October to December 2016. Two radiologists independently performed all measurements. Intra-class correlation coefficients (ICC) and Bland-Altman plots were used for analysis. (3) Results: The overall variability in the calculated volume was larger than when using the semiautomatic volume measurement. Nodules <6 mm tended to have larger variability than nodules ≥6 mm in both one-dimensional and calculated volume measurements. The isolated type showed smaller variability in both intra- and inter-reader comparisons. The juxta-vascular type showed the largest variability in both one-dimensional and calculated volume measurements. The variability was decreased when using the 3D volume semiautomated software. (4) Conclusions: The present study suggests that 3D semiautomatic volume measurements showed lower variability than the calculated volume measurement. Nodule size and location influence measurement variability. The intra- and inter-reader variabilities in nodule volume measurement were considerable. MDPI 2022-09-26 /pmc/articles/PMC9600531/ /pubmed/36292008 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics12102319 Text en © 2022 by the authors. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
spellingShingle Article
Chen, Hong
Huang, Haozhe
Zhang, Jianye
Wang, Xuexue
Han, Mengyang
Ding, Chanjun
Wang, Jinhong
Intra- and Inter-Reader Variations in Lung Nodule Measurements: Influences of Nodule Size, Location, and Observers
title Intra- and Inter-Reader Variations in Lung Nodule Measurements: Influences of Nodule Size, Location, and Observers
title_full Intra- and Inter-Reader Variations in Lung Nodule Measurements: Influences of Nodule Size, Location, and Observers
title_fullStr Intra- and Inter-Reader Variations in Lung Nodule Measurements: Influences of Nodule Size, Location, and Observers
title_full_unstemmed Intra- and Inter-Reader Variations in Lung Nodule Measurements: Influences of Nodule Size, Location, and Observers
title_short Intra- and Inter-Reader Variations in Lung Nodule Measurements: Influences of Nodule Size, Location, and Observers
title_sort intra- and inter-reader variations in lung nodule measurements: influences of nodule size, location, and observers
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9600531/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36292008
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics12102319
work_keys_str_mv AT chenhong intraandinterreadervariationsinlungnodulemeasurementsinfluencesofnodulesizelocationandobservers
AT huanghaozhe intraandinterreadervariationsinlungnodulemeasurementsinfluencesofnodulesizelocationandobservers
AT zhangjianye intraandinterreadervariationsinlungnodulemeasurementsinfluencesofnodulesizelocationandobservers
AT wangxuexue intraandinterreadervariationsinlungnodulemeasurementsinfluencesofnodulesizelocationandobservers
AT hanmengyang intraandinterreadervariationsinlungnodulemeasurementsinfluencesofnodulesizelocationandobservers
AT dingchanjun intraandinterreadervariationsinlungnodulemeasurementsinfluencesofnodulesizelocationandobservers
AT wangjinhong intraandinterreadervariationsinlungnodulemeasurementsinfluencesofnodulesizelocationandobservers