Variability of quantitative measurements of metastatic liver lesions: a multi-radiation-dose-level and multi-reader comparison.
Dual-source computed tomography
Interobserver variability
Intraobserver variability
Liver metastasis
Radiation dose
Journal
Abdominal radiology (New York)
ISSN: 2366-0058
Titre abrégé: Abdom Radiol (NY)
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101674571
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 2021
01 2021
Historique:
received:
15
04
2020
accepted:
26
05
2020
pubmed:
12
6
2020
medline:
22
6
2021
entrez:
12
6
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
To evaluate the variability of quantitative measurements of metastatic liver lesions by using a multi-radiation-dose-level and multi-reader comparison. Twenty-three study subjects (mean age, 60 years) with 39 liver lesions who underwent a single-energy dual-source contrast-enhanced staging CT between June 2015 and December 2015 were included. CT data were reconstructed with seven different radiation dose levels (ranging from 25 to 100%) on the basis of a single CT acquisition. Four radiologists independently performed manual tumor measurements and two radiologists performed semi-automated tumor measurements. Interobserver, intraobserver, and interdose sources of variability for longest diameter and volumetric measurements were estimated and compared using Wilcoxon rank-sum tests and intraclass correlation coefficients. Inter- and intraobserver variabilities for manual measurements of the longest diameter were higher compared to semi-automated measurements (p < 0.001 for overall). Inter- and intraobserver variabilities of volume measurements were higher compared to the longest diameter measurement (p < 0.001 for overall). Quantitative measurements were statistically different at < 50% radiation dose levels for semi-automated measurements of the longest diameter, and at 25% radiation dose level for volumetric measurements. The variability related to radiation dose was not significantly different from the inter- and intraobserver variability for the measurements of the longest diameter. The variability related to radiation dose is comparable to the inter- and intraobserver variability for measurements of the longest diameter. Caution should be warranted in reducing radiation dose level below 50% of a conventional CT protocol due to the potentially detrimental impact on the assessment of lesion response in the liver.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32524151
doi: 10.1007/s00261-020-02601-8
pii: 10.1007/s00261-020-02601-8
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
226-236Références
Therasse P, Arbuck SG, Eisenhauer EA, et al. (2000)New guidelines to evaluate the response to treatment in solid tumors. European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer, National Cancer Institute of the United States, National Cancer Institute of Canada. J Natl Cancer Inst 92:205-216.
doi: 10.1093/jnci/92.3.205
Eisenhauer EA, Therasse P, Bogaerts J, et al.(2009)New response evaluation criteria in solid tumours: revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1). Eur J Cancer 45:228-247.
doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2008.10.026
Sargent DJ, Rubinstein L, Schwartz L, et al.(2009)Validation of novel imaging methodologies for use as cancer clinical trial end-points. Eur J Cancer 45:290-299.
doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2008.10.030
Prasad SR, Jhaveri KS, Saini S, Hahn PF, Halpern EF, Sumner JE.(2002)CT tumor measurement for therapeutic response assessment: comparison of unidimensional, bidimensional, and volumetric techniques initial observations. Radiology 225:416-419.
doi: 10.1148/radiol.2252011604
Mantatzis M, Kakolyris S, Amarantidis K, Karayiannakis A, Prassopoulos P.(2009) Treatment response classification of liver metastatic disease evaluated on imaging. Are RECIST unidimensional measurements accurate? Eur Radiol 19:1809-1816.
doi: 10.1007/s00330-009-1327-4
Suzuki C, Torkzad MR, Jacobsson H, et al.(2010) Interobserver and intraobserver variability in the response evaluation of cancer therapy according to RECIST and WHO-criteria. Acta Oncol 49:509-514.
doi: 10.3109/02841861003705794
Bauknecht HC, Romano VC, Rogalla P, et al. (2010)Intra- and interobserver variability of linear and volumetric measurements of brain metastases using contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging. Invest Radiol 45:49-56.
doi: 10.1097/RLI.0b013e3181c02ed5
Bonekamp D, Bonekamp S, Halappa VG, et al. (2014)Interobserver agreement of semi-automated and manual measurements of functional MRI metrics of treatment response in hepatocellular carcinoma. Eur J Radiol 83:487-496.
doi: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2013.11.016
Dinkel J, Khalilzadeh O, Hintze C, et al.(2013)Inter-observer reproducibility of semi-automatic tumor diameter measurement and volumetric analysis in patients with lung cancer. Lung Cancer 82:76-82.
doi: 10.1016/j.lungcan.2013.07.006
Erasmus JJ, Gladish GW, Broemeling L, et al.(2003)Interobserver and intraobserver variability in measurement of non-small-cell carcinoma lung lesions: implications for assessment of tumor response. J Clin Oncol 21:2574-2582.
doi: 10.1200/JCO.2003.01.144
Karademir I, Ward E, Peng Y, et al.(2016)Measurements of Hepatic Metastasis on MR Imaging:: Assessment of Interobserver and Intersequence Variability. Acad Radiol 23:132-143.
doi: 10.1016/j.acra.2015.09.002
Krajewski KM, Nishino M, Franchetti Y, Ramaiya NH, Van den Abbeele AD, Choueiri TK.(2014)Intraobserver and interobserver variability in computed tomography size and attenuation measurements in patients with renal cell carcinoma receiving antiangiogenic therapy: implications for alternative response criteria. Cancer-Am Cancer Soc 120:711-721.
McErlean A, Panicek DM, Zabor EC, et al.(2013)Intra- and interobserver variability in CT measurements in oncology. Radiology 269:451-459.
doi: 10.1148/radiol.13122665
Kuhl CK, Alparslan Y, Schmoee J, et al.(2019)Validity of RECIST Version 1.1 for Response Assessment in Metastatic Cancer: A Prospective, Multireader Study. Radiology 290:349-356.
pubmed: 30398433
Zhao B, Schwartz LH, Moskowitz CS, et al. (2005)Pulmonary metastases: effect of CT section thickness on measurement--initial experience. Radiology 234:934-939.
doi: 10.1148/radiol.2343040020
Zhao B, Tan Y, Bell DJ, et al.(2013)Exploring intra- and inter-reader variability in uni-dimensional, bi-dimensional, and volumetric measurements of solid tumors on CT scans reconstructed at different slice intervals. Eur J Radiol 82:959-968.
doi: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2013.02.018
Sakai N, Yabuuchi H, Kondo M, et al.(2015)Volumetric measurement of artificial pure ground-glass nodules at low-dose CT: Comparisons between hybrid iterative reconstruction and filtered back projection. Eur J Radiol 84:2654-2662.
doi: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2015.08.018
Mileto A, Nelson RC, Larson DG, et al.(2017)Variability in Radiation Dose From Repeat Identical CT Examinations: Longitudinal Analysis of 2851 Patients Undergoing 12,635 Thoracoabdominal CT Scans in an Academic Health System. AJR Am J Roentgenol 208:1285-1296.
doi: 10.2214/AJR.16.17070
Jaffe TA, Yoshizumi TT, Toncheva G, et al.(2009)Radiation dose for body CT protocols: variability of scanners at one institution. AJR Am J Roentgenol 193:1141-1147.
doi: 10.2214/AJR.09.2330
Young S, Kim HJ, Ko MM, Ko WW, Flores C, McNitt-Gray MF.(2015)Variability in CT lung-nodule volumetry: Effects of dose reduction and reconstruction methods. Med Phys 42:2679-2689.
doi: 10.1118/1.4918919
Solomon J, Zhang Y, Marin D, Samei E.(2016)SU-G-206-13: Validating Dose Split: A Method to Image the Same Patient at Multiple Doses with a Single CT Acquisition. Med Phys 43 (6Part25):36–42.
Menzel H, Schibila H, Teunen D.(2000)European Guidelines on Quality Criteria for Computed Tomography. Luxembourg: European Commission Publication.
Sica GT. Bias in research studies.(2006)Radiology 238:780–789.
Matthias Gamer, Jim Lemon and Ian Fellows Puspendra Singh. irr: Various Coefficients of Interrater Reliability and Agreement. R package version 0.84. https://www.r-project.org . Published Jan 26, 2019. Accessed Mar 1, 2019.
Koo TK, Li MY. (2016)A Guideline of Selecting and Reporting Intraclass Correlation Coefficients for Reliability Research. J Chiropr Med 15:155–163.
National Comprehensive Cancer Network. NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology. Colon Cancer, Version 3.2019. Published Sept 26, 2019. https://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/pdf/colon.pdf .
McCollough CH, Chen GH, Kalender W, et al. (2012)Achieving routine submillisievert CT scanning: report from the summit on management of radiation dose in CT. Radiology 264:567-580.
doi: 10.1148/radiol.12112265
Kanal KM, Chung JH, Wang J, et al. (2011)Image noise and liver lesion detection with MDCT: a phantom study. AJR Am J Roentgenol 197:437-441.
doi: 10.2214/AJR.10.5726
Mileto A, Zamora DA, Alessio AM, et al.(2018)CT Detectability of Small Low-Contrast Hypoattenuating Focal Lesions: Iterative Reconstructions versus Filtered Back Projection. Radiology 289:443-454.
doi: 10.1148/radiol.2018180137
Buerke B, Puesken M, Muter S, et al.(2010)Measurement accuracy and reproducibility of semiautomated metric and volumetric lymph node analysis in MDCT. AJR Am J Roentgenol 195:979-985.
doi: 10.2214/AJR.10.4010
van Kessel CS, van Leeuwen MS, Witteveen PO, Kwee TC, Verkooijen HM, van Hillegersberg R.(2012)Semi-automatic software increases CT measurement accuracy but not response classification of colorectal liver metastases after chemotherapy. Eur J Radiol 81:2543-2549.
doi: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2011.12.026
Zhao B, James LP, Moskowitz CS, et al.(2009)Evaluating variability in tumor measurements from same-day repeat CT scans of patients with non-small cell lung cancer. Radiology 252:263-272.
doi: 10.1148/radiol.2522081593
Keil S, Plumhans C, Behrendt FF, et al.(2009)Semi-automated quantification of hepatic lesions in a phantom. Invest Radiol 44:82-88.
doi: 10.1097/RLI.0b013e3181911ffa
Fabel M, von Tengg-Kobligk H, Giesel FL, et al.(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.
doi: 10.1007/s00330-008-0866-4
Kalkmann J, Ladd SC, de Greiff A, Forsting M, Stattaus J.(2010)Suitability of semi-automated tumor response assessment of liver metastases using a dedicated software package. Rofo 182:581-588.
doi: 10.1055/s-0029-1245193
Li Q, Liang Y, Huang Q, et al.(2016)Volumetry of low-contrast liver lesions with CT: Investigation of estimation uncertainties in a phantom study. Med Phys 43:6608.
doi: 10.1118/1.4967776