Academic Radiology
Volume 16, Issue 2 , Pages 181-186, February 2009

Comparison of the Accuracy of CT Volume Calculated by Circumscription to Prolate Ellipsoid Volume (Bidimensional Measurement Multiplied by Coronal Long Axis)

  • Ali M. Rkein, MSII

      Affiliations

    • University of Arizona College of Medicine, PO Box 245067, Tucson, AZ 85724-5067
  • ,
  • Chivonne Harrigal, MD

      Affiliations

    • Department of Radiology, PO Box 245067, Tucson, AZ 85724-5067
  • ,
  • Arnold C. Friedman, MD

      Affiliations

    • Department of Radiology, PO Box 245067, Tucson, AZ 85724-5067
    • Corresponding Author InformationAddress correspondence to: A.C.F.
  • ,
  • Daniel Persky, MD

      Affiliations

    • Department of Oncology, PO Box 245067, Tucson, AZ 85724-5067
  • ,
  • Elizabeth Krupinski, PhD

      Affiliations

    • Department of Radiology, PO Box 245067, Tucson, AZ 85724-5067

Received 13 May 2008; accepted 7 August 2008.

Rationale and Objectives

Tumor volume is one of the most important factors in evaluating the response to treatment of patients with cancer. The objective of this study was to compare computed tomographic (CT) volume calculation using a semiautomated circumscribing tracing tool (manual circumscription [MC]) to prolate ellipsoid volume calculation (PEVC; bidimensional measurement multiplied by coronal long axis) and determine which was more accurate and consistent.

Materials and Methods

The study included six patients with nine neoplasms, six phantoms, and two radiologists. The neoplasms and phantoms of varying sizes and shapes were imaged using multidetector CT scanners, with slice thicknesses ranging from 0.5 to 3 mm. Measurements were performed using a TeraRecon 3D workstation. Each lesion and phantom was manually circumscribed, and its three dimensions were measured. The measurements were repeated 2 weeks later.

Results

MC of the phantoms deviated from their true volumes by an average of 3.0 ± 1%, whereas PEVC deviated by 10.1 ± 3.99%. MC interobserver readings varied by 1.2 ± 0.6% and PEVC by 4.8 ± 3.3%. MC intraobserver readings varied by 1.95 ± 1.75% and PEVC by 2.5 ± 1.55%. Patient tumor volume predicted by MC and PEVC varied greatly; MC interobserver readings differed by 3.3 ± 2.1% and PEVC by 20.1 ± 10.6%. MC intraobserver readings varied by 2.5 ± 1.9% and PEVC by 5.5 ± 3.2%. Variability was greater for complex shapes than for simple shapes. Bidimensional analysis demonstrated an interobserver difference of 12.1 ± 8.7% and an intraobserver difference of 5.05 ± 3.3%. These results demonstrate large interobserver and intraobserver variability. Variability was greater for complex shapes than for simple shapes.

Conclusion

MC of neoplasms provided more accurate and consistent volume predictions than PEVC. More complicated shapes demonstrated the superiority of MC over PEVC.

To access this article, please choose from the options below

Login to an existing account or Register a new account.

  • Purchase this article for 31.50 USD (You must login/register to purchase this article)

    Online access for 24 hours. The PDF version can be downloaded as your permanent record.

  • Subscribe to this title

    Get unlimited online access to this article and all other articles in this title 24/7 for one year.

  • Claim access now

    For current subscribers with Society Membership or Account Number.

  • Visit SciVerse ScienceDirect to see if you have access via your institution.
 

PII: S1076-6332(08)00530-8

doi:10.1016/j.acra.2008.08.013

Academic Radiology
Volume 16, Issue 2 , Pages 181-186, February 2009