Reproducibility of linear tumor measurements using PACS: comparison of caliper method with edge-tracing method

The aim of this study was to evaluate inter- and intra-observer reproducibility when making electronic caliper linear tumor measurements on picture archiving and communications systems (PACS) and compare them with linear measurements obtained from circumferential tracing of tumor perimeter. Three radiologists measured 64 masses from 30 patients on body CT scans in two separate settings. Long axis and perpendicular short axis were measured using electronic calipers. The edge of each tumor was traced electronically and the long and short axes were calculated by computer software. The reproducibility of a measurement was evaluated by computing and comparing the absolute value of the mean difference between initial and subsequent measurements. The mean differences ±95% confidence interval (CI) between two measurements of the long by short axis were 3.8±2.6×3.1±1.8 mm when the caliper method was used and 3.5±2.0×3.2±1.5 mm when the tumor tracing method was used. There was no statistically significant difference in individual intra-observer reproducibility of tumor axes measurements. Neither long- nor short-axis single-dimension measurements resulted in significantly greater or lesser intra-observer reproducibility. When comparing caliper and tracing measurements, the overall mean difference (3.42±1.8 vs 3.38±1.4 mm) was not statistically significant. There was close correlation between the individual measurements made by each observer whether these were made by electronic calipers and when these were calculated from electronic tracings (Pearson correlations between 0.79 and 0.949). Current PACS systems allow reproducible linear, long or short axis, tumor measurements. There is no significant difference in reproducibility of measurements whether these are made directly with electronic calipers or calculated from tumor edge tracings.

[1]  G. Marchal,et al.  Evaluation of manual vs semi-automated delineation of liver lesions on CT images , 1997, European Radiology.

[2]  Comparison of young clinical investigators' accuracy and reproducibility when measuring pulmonary and skin surface nodules using a circumferential measurement versus a standard caliper measurement: American Association for Cancer Research/American Society of Clinical Oncology Clinical Trials Worksho , 2000, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[3]  L. Schwartz,et al.  Evaluation of tumor measurements in oncology: use of film-based and electronic techniques. , 2000, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[4]  B. Escudier,et al.  Response rate accuracy in oncology trials: reasons for interobserver variability. Groupe Français d'Immunothérapie of the Fédération Nationale des Centres de Lutte Contre le Cancer. , 1997, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[5]  Y. Akiyama,et al.  Use of multidetector row CT with volume renderings in right lobe living liver transplantation , 2002, European Radiology.

[6]  B D Fornage Measuring masses on cross-sectional images. , 1993, Radiology.

[7]  S Saini,et al.  Radiologic measurement of tumor size in clinical trials: past, present, and future. , 2001, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[8]  A. Miller,et al.  Reporting results of cancer treatment , 1981, Cancer.

[9]  E. McFadden,et al.  Toxicity and response criteria of the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group , 1982, American journal of clinical oncology.

[10]  J. Hanley,et al.  The effect of measuring error on the results of therapeutic trials in advanced cancer , 1976, Cancer.

[11]  R. D. Hunter,et al.  WHO Handbook for Reporting Results of Cancer Treatment , 1980 .

[12]  P. Lavin,et al.  Studies in variation associated with the measurement of solid tumors , 1980, Cancer.

[13]  S. Lohr Statistics (2nd Ed.) , 1994 .

[14]  A. Buzdar,et al.  Multicenter phase II study of capecitabine in paclitaxel-refractory metastatic breast cancer. , 1999, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[15]  K. Hopper,et al.  Analysis of interobserver and intraobserver variability in CT tumor measurements. , 1996, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[16]  I. Tannock,et al.  Criteria of tumor response used in clinical trials of chemotherapy. , 1985, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[17]  I. Tannock,et al.  Influence of measurement error on assessment of response to anticancer chemotherapy: proposal for new criteria of tumor response. , 1984, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[18]  M. Christian,et al.  [New guidelines to evaluate the response to treatment in solid tumors]. , 2000, Bulletin du cancer.

[19]  A. F. Cardenas,et al.  Integrated multimedia timeline of medical images and data for thoracic oncology patients. , 1996, Radiographics : a review publication of the Radiological Society of North America, Inc.