Search

Purpose: The development of computer-aided diagnostic (CAD) methods for lung nodule detection, classification, and quantitative assessment can be facilitated through a well-characterized repository of computed tomography (CT) scans. The Lung Image Database Consortium (LIDC) and Image Database Resource Initiative (IDRI) completed such a database, establishing a publicly available reference for the medical imaging research community. Initiated by the National Cancer Institute (NCI), further advanced by the Foundation for the National Institutes of Health (FNIH), and accompanied by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) through active participation, this public-private partnership demonstrates the success of a consortium founded on a consensus-based process. Methods: Seven academic centers and eight medical imaging companies collaborated to identify, address, and resolve challenging organizational, technical, and clinical issues to provide a solid foundation for a robust database. The LIDC/IDRI Database contains 1018 cases, each of which includes images from a clinical thoracic CT scan and an associated XML file that records the results of a two-phase image annotation process performed by four experienced thoracic radiologists. In the initial blinded-read phase, each radiologist independently reviewed each CT scan and marked lesions belonging to one of three categories (" nodule�3 mm," " nodule

Purpose: The current linear method to track tumor progression and evaluate treatment efficacy is insufficient for malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM). A volumetric method for tumor measurement could improve the evaluation of novel treatments, but a fully manual implementation of volume measurement is too tedious and time-consuming. This manuscript presents a computerized method for the three-dimensional segmentation and volumetric analysis of MPM. Methods: The computerized MPM segmentation method segments the lung parenchyma and hemithoracic cavities to define the pleural space. Nonlinear diffusion and a k-means classifier are then implemented to identify MPM in the pleural space. A database of 31 computed tomography scans from 31 patients with pathologically confirmed MPM was retrospectively collected. Three observers independently outlined five randomly selected sections in each scan. The Jaccard similarity coefficient (J) between each of the observers and between the observer-defined and computer-defined segmentations was calculated. The computer-defined and the observer-defined segmentation areas (averaged over all observers) were both calculated for each axial section and compared using Bland–Altman plots. Results: The median J value among observers averaged over all sections was 0.517. The median J between the computer-defined and manual segmentations was 0.484. The difference between these values was not statistically significant. The area delineated by the computerized method demonstrated variability and bias comparable to the tumor area calculated from manual delineations. Conclusions: A computerized method for segmentation and measurement of MPM was developed. This method requires minimal initialization by the user and demonstrated good agreement with manually drawn outlines and area measurements. This method will allow volumetric tracking of tumor progression and may improve the evaluation of novel MPM treatments.

Purpose: Initial outlines are often presented as an aid to reduce the time-cost associated with manual segmentation and measurement of structures in medical images. This study evaluated the influence of initial outlines on manual segmentation intraobserver and interobserver precision. Methods: Three observers independently outlined all pleural mesothelioma tumors present in five computed tomography (CT) sections in each of 30 patient scans. After a lapse of time, each observer was presented with the same series of CT sections with the outlines of each observer superimposed as initial outlines. Each observer created altered outlines by altering the initial outlines to reflect their perception of the tumor boundary. Altered outlines were compared to original outlines using the Jaccard similarity coefficient (J). Intraobserver and interobserver precision of observer outlines were calculated by applying linear mixed effects analysis of variance models to the J values. The percent of minor alterations (alterations that resulted in only slight changes in the initial outline) was also recorded. Results: The average J value between pairs of observer original outlines was 0.371. The average J value between pairs of observer outlines when altered from an identical initial outline was 0.796, indicating increased interobserver precision. The average difference between J values of an observer’s segmentation created by altering their own initial outline and when altering a different observer’s initial outline was 0.476, indicating initial outlines strongly influence intraobserver precision. Observers made minor alterations on 74.5% of initial outlines with which they were presented. Conclusions: Intraobserver and interobserver precision were strongly dependent on the initial outline. These effects are likely due to the tendency of observers to make only minor corrections to initial outlines. This finding could impact observer study design, tumor growth assessment, computer-aided diagnosis system validation, and radiation therapy target volume definition when initial outlines are used as an observer aid.

Rationale and ObjectivesStudies that evaluate the lung-nodule-detection performance of radiologists or computerized methods depend on an initial inventory of the nodules within the thoracic images (the “truth”). The purpose of this study was to analyze (1) variability in the “truth” defined by different combinations of experienced thoracic radiologists and (2) variability in the performance of other experienced thoracic radiologists based on these definitions of “truth” in the context of lung nodule detection on computed tomography (CT) scans.Materials and MethodsTwenty-five thoracic CT scans were reviewed by four thoracic radiologists, who independently marked lesions they considered to be nodules ≥ 3 mm in maximum diameter. Panel “truth” sets of nodules then were derived from the nodules marked by different combinations of two and three of these four radiologists. The nodule-detection performance of the other radiologists was evaluated based on these panel “truth” sets.ResultsThe number of “true” nodules in the different panel “truth” sets ranged from 15–89 (mean: 49.8±25.6). The mean radiologist nodule-detection sensitivities across radiologists and panel “truth” sets for different panel “truth” conditions ranged from 51.0–83.2%; mean false-positive rates ranged from 0.33–1.39 per case.ConclusionSubstantial variability exists across radiologists in the task of lung nodule identification in CT scans. The definition of “truth” on which lung nodule detection studies are based must be carefully considered, since even experienced thoracic radiologists may not perform well when measured against the “truth” established by other experienced thoracic radiologists.Keywords: lung nodule, computed tomography (CT), thoracic imaging, inter-observer variability, computer-aided diagnosis (CAD)

Measurement of the size of anatomic regions of interest in medical images is used to diagnose disease, track growth, and evaluate response to therapy. The discrete nature of medical images allows for both continuous and discrete definitions of region boundary. These definitions may, in turn, support several methods of area calculation that give substantially different quantitative values. This study investigated several boundary definitions (e.g., continuous polygon, internal discrete, and external discrete) and area calculation methods (pixel counting and Green’s theorem). These methods were applied to three separate databases: A synthetic image database, the Lung Image Database Consortium database of lung nodules and a database of adrenal gland outlines. Average percent differences in area on the order of 20% were found among the different methods applied to the clinical databases. These results support the idea that inconsistent application of region boundary definition and area calculation may substantially impact measurement accuracy.

Rationale and Objectives The goal was to investigate the effects of choosing between different metrics in estimating the size of pulmonary nodules as a factor both of nodule characterization and of performance of computer aided detection systems, because the latter are always qualified with respect to a given size range of nodules. Materials and Methods This study used 265 whole-lung CT scans documented by the Lung Image Database Consortium (LIDC) using their protocol for nodule evaluation. Each inspected lesion was reviewed independently by four experienced radiologists who provided boundary markings for nodules larger than 3 mm. Four size metrics, based on the boundary markings, were considered: a unidimensional and two bidimensional measures on a single image slice and a volumetric measurement based on all the image slices. The radiologist boundaries were processed and those with four markings were analyzed to characterize the interradiologist variation, while those with at least one marking were used to examine the difference between the metrics. Results The processing of the annotations found 127 nodules marked by all of the four radiologists and an extended set of 518 nodules each having at least one observation with three-dimensional sizes ranging from 2.03 to 29.4 mm (average 7.05 mm, median 5.71 mm). A very high interobserver variation was observed for all these metrics: 95% of estimated standard deviations were in the following ranges for the three-dimensional, unidimensional, and two bidimensional size metrics, respectively (in mm): 0.49–1.25, 0.67–2.55, 0.78–2.11, and 0.96–2.69. Also, a very large difference among the metrics was observed: 0.95 probability-coverage region widths for the volume estimation conditional on unidimensional, and the two bidimensional size measurements of 10 mm were 7.32, 7.72, and 6.29 mm, respectively. Conclusions The selection of data subsets for performance evaluation is highly impacted by the size metric choice. The LIDC plans to include a single size measure for each nodule in its database. This metric is not intended as a gold standard for nodule size; rather, it is intended to facilitate the selection of unique repeatable size limited nodule subsets.

The current linear method to track tumor progression and evaluate treatment efficacy is insufficient for malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM). A volumetric method for tumor measurement could improve the evaluation of novel treatments, but a fully manual implementation of volume measurement is too tedious and time-consuming. This manuscript presents a computerized method for the three-dimensional segmentation and volumetric analysis of MPM.The computerized MPM segmentation method segments the lung parenchyma and hemithoracic cavities to define the pleural space. Nonlinear diffusion and a k-means classifier are then implemented to identify MPM in the pleural space. A database of 31 computed tomography scans from 31 patients with pathologically confirmed MPM was retrospectively collected. Three observers independently outlined five randomly selected sections in each scan. The Jaccard similarity coefficient (J) between each of the observers and between the observer-defined and computer-defined segmentations was calculated. The computer-defined and the observer-defined segmentation areas (averaged over all observers) were both calculated for each axial section and compared using Bland-Altman plots.The median J value among observers averaged over all sections was 0.517. The median J between the computer-defined and manual segmentations was 0.484. The difference between these values was not statistically significant. The area delineated by the computerized method demonstrated variability and bias comparable to the tumor area calculated from manual delineations.A computerized method for segmentation and measurement of MPM was developed. This method requires minimal initialization by the user and demonstrated good agreement with manually drawn outlines and area measurements. This method will allow volumetric tracking of tumor progression and may improve the evaluation of novel MPM treatments.

Studies that evaluate the lung nodule detection performance of radiologists or computerized methods depend on an initial inventory of the nodules within the thoracic images (the "truth"). The purpose of this study was to analyze (1) variability in the "truth" defined by different combinations of experienced thoracic radiologists and (2) variability in the performance of other experienced thoracic radiologists based on these definitions of "truth" in the context of lung nodule detection in computed tomographic (CT) scans.Twenty-five thoracic CT scans were reviewed by four thoracic radiologists, who independently marked lesions they considered to be nodulesor=3 mm in maximum diameter. Panel "truth" sets of nodules were then derived from the nodules marked by different combinations of two and three of these four radiologists. The nodule detection performance of the other radiologists was evaluated based on these panel "truth" sets.The number of "true" nodules in the different panel "truth" sets ranged from 15 to 89 (mean 49.8 +/- 25.6). The mean radiologist nodule detection sensitivities across radiologists and panel "truth" sets for different panel "truth" conditions ranged from 51.0 to 83.2%; mean false-positive rates ranged from 0.33 to 1.39 per case.Substantial variability exists across radiologists in the task of lung nodule identification in CT scans. The definition of "truth" on which lung nodule detection studies are based must be carefully considered, because even experienced thoracic radiologists may not perform well when measured against the "truth" established by other experienced thoracic radiologists.

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to analyze the variability of experienced thoracic radiologists in the identification of lung nodules on computed tomography (CT) scans and thereby to investigate variability in the establishment of the "truth" against which nodule-based studies are measured.MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty CT scans were reviewed twice by four thoracic radiologists through a two-phase image annotation process. During the initial "blinded read" phase, radiologists independently marked lesions they identified as "nodule >or=3 mm (diameter)," "nodule or=3 mm." During the subsequent "unblinded read" phase, the blinded read results of all four radiologists were revealed to each radiologist, who then independently reviewed their marks along with the anonymous marks of their colleagues; a radiologist's own marks then could be deleted, added, or left unchanged. This approach was developed to identify, as completely as possible, all nodules in a scan without requiring forced consensus.RESULTS: After the initial blinded read phase, 71 lesions received "nodule >or=3 mm" marks from at least one radiologist; however, all four radiologists assigned such marks to only 24 (33.8%) of these lesions. After the unblinded reads, a total of 59 lesions were marked as "nodule >or=3 mm" by at least one radiologist. Twenty-seven (45.8%) of these lesions received such marks from all four radiologists, three (5.1%) were identified as such by three radiologists, 12 (20.3%) were identified by two radiologists, and 17 (28.8%) were identified by only a single radiologist.CONCLUSION: The two-phase image annotation process yields improved agreement among radiologists in the interpretation of nodules >or=3 mm. Nevertheless, substantial variability remains across radiologists in the task of lung nodule identification.