...
首页> 外文期刊>Academic radiology >Comparison of the accuracy of CT volume calculated by circumscription to prolate ellipsoid volume (bidimensional measurement multiplied by coronal long axis).
【24h】

Comparison of the accuracy of CT volume calculated by circumscription to prolate ellipsoid volume (bidimensional measurement multiplied by coronal long axis).

机译:通过切开计算得出的椭球体体积的CT体积精度的比较(二维测量值乘以冠状长轴)。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

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.
机译:理由和目的:肿瘤体积是评估癌症患者对治疗反应的最重要因素之一。这项研究的目的是比较使用半自动外接描记工具(手动外接[MC])进行椭球体体积计算(PEVC;二维测量乘以冠状长轴)的计算机断层扫描(CT)体积计算,并确定哪种更准确并保持一致材料与方法:该研究纳入了6例具有9例肿瘤,6例体模和2例放射科医生的患者。使用多探测器CT扫描仪对大小和形状各异的肿瘤和体模进行成像,切片厚度范围为0.5到3 mm。使用TeraRecon 3D工作站进行测量。手动限制每个病变和体模,并测量其三个维度。 2周后重复测量。结果:体模的MC偏离其真实体积平均3.0 +/- 1%,而PEVC偏离10.1 +/- 3.99%。 MC观察者间的读数变化为1.2 +/- 0.6%,PEVC的变化为4.8 +/- 3.3%。 MC观察者读数变化1.95 +/- 1.75%,PEVC变化2.5 +/- 1.55%。 MC和PEVC预测的患者肿瘤体积差异很大。 MC观察者之间的读数差异为3.3 +/- 2.1%,PEVC差异为20.1 +/- 10.6%。 MC观察者内读数变化2.5 +/- 1.9%,PEVC变化5.5 +/- 3.2%。复杂形状的可变性大于简单形状。二维分析显示观察者间差异为12.1 +/- 8.7%,观察者内差异为5.05 +/- 3.3%。这些结果表明观察者之间和观察者内部差异很大。复杂形状的可变性大于简单形状。结论:肿瘤MC提供比PEVC更准确和一致的体积预测。更复杂的形状证明了MC优于PEVC。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号