"Will I change nodule management recommendations if I change my CAD system?"-impact of volumetric deviation between different CAD systems on lesion management.
Humans
Tomography, X-Ray Computed
/ methods
Diagnosis, Computer-Assisted
/ methods
Multiple Pulmonary Nodules
/ diagnostic imaging
Phantoms, Imaging
Radiologists
Lung Neoplasms
/ diagnostic imaging
Solitary Pulmonary Nodule
/ diagnostic imaging
Radiographic Image Interpretation, Computer-Assisted
/ methods
Sensitivity and Specificity
Artificial intelligence
Computer-assisted diagnosis
Deep learning
Imaging phantoms
Lung neoplasms
Journal
European radiology
ISSN: 1432-1084
Titre abrégé: Eur Radiol
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 9114774
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Aug 2023
Aug 2023
Historique:
received:
12
07
2022
accepted:
05
02
2023
revised:
17
11
2022
medline:
10
7
2023
pubmed:
10
3
2023
entrez:
9
3
2023
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
To evaluate and compare the measurement accuracy of two different computer-aided diagnosis (CAD) systems regarding artificial pulmonary nodules and assess the clinical impact of volumetric inaccuracies in a phantom study. In this phantom study, 59 different phantom arrangements with 326 artificial nodules (178 solid, 148 ground-glass) were scanned at 80 kV, 100 kV, and 120 kV. Four different nodule diameters were used: 5 mm, 8 mm, 10 mm, and 12 mm. Scans were analyzed by a deep-learning (DL)-based CAD and a standard CAD system. Relative volumetric errors (RVE) of each system vs. ground truth and the relative volume difference (RVD) DL-based vs. standard CAD were calculated. The Bland-Altman method was used to define the limits of agreement (LOA). The hypothetical impact on LungRADS classification was assessed for both systems. There was no difference between the three voltage groups regarding nodule volumetry. Regarding the solid nodules, the RVE of the 5-mm-, 8-mm-, 10-mm-, and 12-mm-size groups for the DL CAD/standard CAD were 12.2/2.8%, 1.3/ - 2.8%, - 3.6/1.5%, and - 12.2/ - 0.3%, respectively. The corresponding values for the ground-glass nodules (GGN) were 25.6%/81.0%, 9.0%/28.0%, 7.6/20.6%, and 6.8/21.2%. The mean RVD for solid nodules/GGN was 1.3/ - 15.2%. Regarding the LungRADS classification, 88.5% and 79.8% of all solid nodules were correctly assigned by the DL CAD and the standard CAD, respectively. 14.9% of the nodules were assigned differently between the systems. Patient management may be affected by the volumetric inaccuracy of the CAD systems and hence demands supervision and/or manual correction by a radiologist. • The DL-based CAD system was more accurate in the volumetry of GGN and less accurate regarding solid nodules than the standard CAD system. • Nodule size and attenuation have an effect on the measurement accuracy of both systems; tube voltage has no effect on measurement accuracy. • Measurement inaccuracies of CAD systems can have an impact on patient management, which demands supervision by radiologists.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36894752
doi: 10.1007/s00330-023-09525-z
pii: 10.1007/s00330-023-09525-z
pmc: PMC10326095
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
5568-5577Informations de copyright
© 2023. The Author(s).
Références
Heuvelmans MA, Walter JE, Vliegenthart R et al (2018) Disagreement of diameter and volume measurements for pulmonary nodule size estimation in CT lung cancer screening. Thorax 73:779–781
doi: 10.1136/thoraxjnl-2017-210770
pubmed: 29056601
Horeweg N, van Rosmalen J, Heuvelmans MA et al (2014) Lung cancer probability in patients with CT-detected pulmonary nodules: a prespecified analysis of data from the NELSON trial of low-dose CT screening. Lancet Oncol 15:1332–1341
doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(14)70389-4
pubmed: 25282285
Scholten ET, de Jong PA, Jacobs C et al (2015) Interscan variation of semi-automated volumetry of subsolid pulmonary nodules. Eur Radiol 25:1040–1047
doi: 10.1007/s00330-014-3478-1
pubmed: 25413965
Revel MP, Bissery A, Bienvenu M, Aycard L, Lefort C, Frija G (2004) Are two-dimensional CT measurements of small noncalcified pulmonary nodules reliable? Radiology 231:453–458
doi: 10.1148/radiol.2312030167
pubmed: 15128990
Callister ME, Baldwin DR, Akram AR et al (2015) British Thoracic Society guidelines for the investigation and management of pulmonary nodules. Thorax 70 Suppl 2:ii1-ii54
Horeweg N, van der Aalst CM, Vliegenthart R et al (2013) Volumetric computed tomography screening for lung cancer: three rounds of the NELSON trial. Eur Respir J 42:1659–1667
doi: 10.1183/09031936.00197712
pubmed: 23845716
Dyer SC, Bartholmai BJ, Koo CW (2020) Implications of the updated Lung CT Screening Reporting and Data System (Lung-RADS version 1.1) for lung cancer screening. J Thorac Dis 12:6966–6977
doi: 10.21037/jtd-2019-cptn-02
pubmed: 33282402
pmcid: 7711402
Gietema HA, Schaefer-Prokop CM, Mali WP, Groenewegen G, Prokop M (2007) Pulmonary nodules: Interscan variability of semiautomated volume measurements with multisection CT– influence of inspiration level, nodule size, and segmentation performance. Radiology 245:888–894
doi: 10.1148/radiol.2452061054
pubmed: 17923508
Goodman LR, Gulsun M, Washington L, Nagy PG, Piacsek KL (2006) Inherent variability of CT lung nodule measurements in vivo using semiautomated volumetric measurements. AJR Am J Roentgenol 186:989–994
doi: 10.2214/AJR.04.1821
pubmed: 16554568
Neri E, Coppola F, Miele V, Bibbolino C, Grassi R (2020) Artificial intelligence: Who is responsible for the diagnosis? Radiol Med 125:517–521
doi: 10.1007/s11547-020-01135-9
pubmed: 32006241
Li L, Liu Z, Huang H, Lin M, Luo D (2019) Evaluating the performance of a deep learning-based computer-aided diagnosis (DL-CAD) system for detecting and characterizing lung nodules: comparison with the performance of double reading by radiologists. Thorac Cancer 10:183–192
doi: 10.1111/1759-7714.12931
pubmed: 30536611
Peters AA, Decasper A, Munz J et al (2021) Performance of an AI based CAD system in solid lung nodule detection on chest phantom radiographs compared to radiology residents and fellow radiologists. J Thorac Dis 13:2728–2737
doi: 10.21037/jtd-20-3522
pubmed: 34164165
pmcid: 8182550
Christe A, Leidolt L, Huber A et al (2013) Lung cancer screening with CT: evaluation of radiologists and different computer assisted detection software (CAD) as first and second readers for lung nodule detection at different dose levels. Eur J Radiol 82:e873-878
doi: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2013.08.026
pubmed: 24074648
Wielpütz MO, Lederlin M, Wroblewski J et al (2013) CT volumetry of artificial pulmonary nodules using an ex vivo lung phantom: influence of exposure parameters and iterative reconstruction on reproducibility. Eur J Radiol 82:1577–1583
doi: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2013.04.035
pubmed: 23727376
Wielpütz MO, Wroblewski J, Lederlin M et al (2015) Computer-aided detection of artificial pulmonary nodules using an ex vivo lung phantom: influence of exposure parameters and iterative reconstruction. Eur J Radiol 84:1005–1011
doi: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2015.01.025
pubmed: 25740701
Wielpütz MO, Bardarova D, Weinheimer O et al (2014) Variation of densitometry on computed tomography in COPD–influence of different software tools. PLoS One 9:e112898
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0112898
pubmed: 25386874
pmcid: 4227864
Zhao YR, van Ooijen PM, Dorrius MD et al (2014) Comparison of three software systems for semi-automatic volumetry of pulmonary nodules on baseline and follow-up CT examinations. Acta Radiol 55:691–698
doi: 10.1177/0284185113508177
pubmed: 24132766
Scholten ET, de Hoop B, Jacobs C et al (2013) Semi-automatic quantification of subsolid pulmonary nodules: comparison with manual measurements. PLoS One 8:e80249
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0080249
pubmed: 24278264
pmcid: 3837004
Ebner L, Roos JE, Christensen JD et al (2016) Maximum-intensity-projection and computer-aided-detection algorithms as stand-alone reader devices in lung cancer screening using different dose levels and reconstruction kernels. AJR Am J Roentgenol 207:282–288
doi: 10.2214/AJR.15.15588
pubmed: 27249174
Christe A, Szucs-Farkas Z, Huber A et al (2013) Optimal dose levels in screening chest CT for unimpaired detection and volumetry of lung nodules, with and without computer assisted detection at minimal patient radiation. PLoS One 8:e82919
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0082919
pubmed: 24386126
pmcid: 3873253
Bland JM, Altman DG (1995) Comparing methods of measurement: why plotting difference against standard method is misleading. Lancet 346:1085–1087
doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(95)91748-9
pubmed: 7564793
Bland JM, Altman DG (1986) Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1:307–310
doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(86)90837-8
pubmed: 2868172
Bartlett EC, Kemp SV, Rawal B, Devaraj A (2021) Defining growth in small pulmonary nodules using volumetry: results from a “coffee-break” CT study and implications for current nodule management guidelines. Eur Radiol. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-021-08302-0
doi: 10.1007/s00330-021-08302-0
pubmed: 34580748
pmcid: 8831344
Chelala L, Hossain R, Kazerooni EA, Christensen JD, Dyer DS, White CS (2021) Lung-RADS Version 1.1: challenges and a look ahead, from the AJR Special Series on Radiology Reporting and Data Systems. AJR Am J Roentgenol 216:1411–1422
doi: 10.2214/AJR.20.24807
pubmed: 33470834
Peters AA, Huber AT, Obmann VC, Heverhagen JT, Christe A, Ebner L (2022) Diagnostic validation of a deep learning nodule detection algorithm in low-dose chest CT: determination of optimized dose thresholds in a virtual screening scenario. Eur Radiol. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-021-08511-7
doi: 10.1007/s00330-021-08511-7
pubmed: 36538071
pmcid: 9935727
Yanagawa M, Honda O, Yoshida S et al (2009) Commercially available computer-aided detection system for pulmonary nodules on thin-section images using 64 detectors-row CT: preliminary study of 48 cases. Acad Radiol 16:924–933
doi: 10.1016/j.acra.2009.01.030
pubmed: 19394873
Godoy MC, Cooperberg PL, Maizlin ZV et al (2008) Detection sensitivity of a commercial lung nodule CAD system in a series of pathologically proven lung cancers. J Thorac Imaging 23:1–6
doi: 10.1097/RTI.0b013e3181339edb
pubmed: 18347512
Yuan R, Vos PM, Cooperberg PL (2006) Computer-aided detection in screening CT for pulmonary nodules. AJR Am J Roentgenol 186:1280–1287
doi: 10.2214/AJR.04.1969
pubmed: 16632719
Hua KL, Hsu CH, Hidayati SC, Cheng WH, Chen YJ (2015) Computer-aided classification of lung nodules on computed tomography images via deep learning technique. Onco Targets Ther 8:2015–2022
pubmed: 26346558
pmcid: 4531007
Oudkerk M, Devaraj A, Vliegenthart R et al (2017) European position statement on lung cancer screening. Lancet Oncol 18:e754–e766
doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(17)30861-6
pubmed: 29208441
(2020) Chest CT for lung cancer screening - technical standards. [Internet]. European society of thoracic imaging. Available via https://www.myesti.org/content-esti/uploads/ESTI-LCS-technical-standards_2019-06-14.pdf . Accessed 10.02.2022
Kazerooni EA, Austin JH, Black WC et al (2014) ACR-STR practice parameter for the performance and reporting of lung cancer screening thoracic computed tomography (CT): 2014 (Resolution 4). J Thorac Imaging 29:310–316
doi: 10.1097/RTI.0000000000000097
pubmed: 24992501
Vonder M, Dorrius MD, Vliegenthart R (2021) Latest CT technologies in lung cancer screening: protocols and radiation dose reduction. Transl Lung Cancer Res 10:1154–1164
doi: 10.21037/tlcr-20-808
pubmed: 33718053
pmcid: 7947397
Tailor TD, Tong BC, Gao J, Choudhury KR, Rubin GD (2019) A geospatial analysis of factors affecting access to CT facilities: implications for lung cancer screening. J Am Coll Radiol 16:1663–1668
doi: 10.1016/j.jacr.2019.06.020
pubmed: 31302055
Blazis SP, Dickerscheid DBM, Linsen PVM, Martins Jarnalo CO (2021) Effect of CT reconstruction settings on the performance of a deep learning based lung nodule CAD system. Eur J Radiol 136:109526
doi: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2021.109526
pubmed: 33453573
Fu B, Wang G, Wu M et al (2020) Influence of CT effective dose and convolution kernel on the detection of pulmonary nodules in different artificial intelligence software systems: a phantom study. Eur J Radiol 126:108928
doi: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2020.108928
pubmed: 32146346