Analysis of interobserver and intraobserver variability in CT tumor measurements

Kenneth D. Hopper, Claudia Kasales, Mark A. Van Slyke, Todd A. Schwartz, Thomas R. TenHave, Judith A. Jozefiak

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

150 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

OBJECTIVE. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the variability between radiologists interpreting thoracic and abdominal/pelvic CT scans in selecting specific sites of metastatic tumor for measurement (indicator lesions) and to assess interobserver and intraobserver variability in tumor measurement. MATERIALS AND METHODS. Three separate experienced radiologists were asked to review 24 combined thoracic and abdominal CT scans in patients with metastatic tumor. Each radiologist was asked to identify the indicator lesions representative of each patient's tumor bulk. In the second phase of the study, 105 specific foci on 26 combined thoracic and abdominal CT studies (including the original 24) were reviewed twice by the same three radiologists.Up to eight foci were randomly identified per patient, and each observer was asked to determine the slice with the maximum diameter for each tumor focus and to measure it in three dimensions (maximum diameter, as perpendicular, and length). RESULTS. A total of 132 tumor sites were present on the CT studies in phase 1, all of which were chosen by at least one observe a san indicator lesion. Of the 116 of these that were separate and nonoverlapped, 57 (49‰) were measured by only one observer, whereas 32 (28‰) and 27 (23‰) were measured by two or all three observers, respectively. Observers were more inclined to pick round or defined/well- defined lesions rather than irregular, oval, or poorly defined ones, although this tendency was not statistically significant. The second phase of the study showed considerable interobserver variability (15‰) in CT tumor measurement, which was worse for poorly defined and irregular lesions. Intraobserver variability in measuring individual foci was less (6‰). CONCLUSION. Radiologists interpreting thoracic and/or abdominal/pelvic CT scans for metastatic cancer should measure and report a significant number of each patient's tumor sites, especially larger ones in different anatomic areas. When interpreting a follow-up CT scan of a patient with metastatic cancer, the interpreting radiologist should remeasure the indicator lesions on the previous and on the follow-up CT scans, especially when the results will change the patient's treatment response category.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)851-854
Number of pages4
JournalAmerican Journal of Roentgenology
Volume167
Issue number4
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 1996

Fingerprint

Observer Variation
Neoplasms
Thorax
Patient Advocacy
Radiologists

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging

Cite this

Hopper, K. D., Kasales, C., Van Slyke, M. A., Schwartz, T. A., TenHave, T. R., & Jozefiak, J. A. (1996). Analysis of interobserver and intraobserver variability in CT tumor measurements. American Journal of Roentgenology, 167(4), 851-854. https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.167.4.8819370
Hopper, Kenneth D. ; Kasales, Claudia ; Van Slyke, Mark A. ; Schwartz, Todd A. ; TenHave, Thomas R. ; Jozefiak, Judith A. / Analysis of interobserver and intraobserver variability in CT tumor measurements. In: American Journal of Roentgenology. 1996 ; Vol. 167, No. 4. pp. 851-854.
@article{e4733cd0728b442a9f29496eeb43488f,
title = "Analysis of interobserver and intraobserver variability in CT tumor measurements",
abstract = "OBJECTIVE. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the variability between radiologists interpreting thoracic and abdominal/pelvic CT scans in selecting specific sites of metastatic tumor for measurement (indicator lesions) and to assess interobserver and intraobserver variability in tumor measurement. MATERIALS AND METHODS. Three separate experienced radiologists were asked to review 24 combined thoracic and abdominal CT scans in patients with metastatic tumor. Each radiologist was asked to identify the indicator lesions representative of each patient's tumor bulk. In the second phase of the study, 105 specific foci on 26 combined thoracic and abdominal CT studies (including the original 24) were reviewed twice by the same three radiologists.Up to eight foci were randomly identified per patient, and each observer was asked to determine the slice with the maximum diameter for each tumor focus and to measure it in three dimensions (maximum diameter, as perpendicular, and length). RESULTS. A total of 132 tumor sites were present on the CT studies in phase 1, all of which were chosen by at least one observe a san indicator lesion. Of the 116 of these that were separate and nonoverlapped, 57 (49‰) were measured by only one observer, whereas 32 (28‰) and 27 (23‰) were measured by two or all three observers, respectively. Observers were more inclined to pick round or defined/well- defined lesions rather than irregular, oval, or poorly defined ones, although this tendency was not statistically significant. The second phase of the study showed considerable interobserver variability (15‰) in CT tumor measurement, which was worse for poorly defined and irregular lesions. Intraobserver variability in measuring individual foci was less (6‰). CONCLUSION. Radiologists interpreting thoracic and/or abdominal/pelvic CT scans for metastatic cancer should measure and report a significant number of each patient's tumor sites, especially larger ones in different anatomic areas. When interpreting a follow-up CT scan of a patient with metastatic cancer, the interpreting radiologist should remeasure the indicator lesions on the previous and on the follow-up CT scans, especially when the results will change the patient's treatment response category.",
author = "Hopper, {Kenneth D.} and Claudia Kasales and {Van Slyke}, {Mark A.} and Schwartz, {Todd A.} and TenHave, {Thomas R.} and Jozefiak, {Judith A.}",
year = "1996",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.2214/ajr.167.4.8819370",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "167",
pages = "851--854",
journal = "American Journal of Roentgenology",
issn = "0361-803X",
publisher = "American Roentgen Ray Society",
number = "4",

}

Analysis of interobserver and intraobserver variability in CT tumor measurements. / Hopper, Kenneth D.; Kasales, Claudia; Van Slyke, Mark A.; Schwartz, Todd A.; TenHave, Thomas R.; Jozefiak, Judith A.

In: American Journal of Roentgenology, Vol. 167, No. 4, 01.01.1996, p. 851-854.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Analysis of interobserver and intraobserver variability in CT tumor measurements

AU - Hopper, Kenneth D.

AU - Kasales, Claudia

AU - Van Slyke, Mark A.

AU - Schwartz, Todd A.

AU - TenHave, Thomas R.

AU - Jozefiak, Judith A.

PY - 1996/1/1

Y1 - 1996/1/1

N2 - OBJECTIVE. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the variability between radiologists interpreting thoracic and abdominal/pelvic CT scans in selecting specific sites of metastatic tumor for measurement (indicator lesions) and to assess interobserver and intraobserver variability in tumor measurement. MATERIALS AND METHODS. Three separate experienced radiologists were asked to review 24 combined thoracic and abdominal CT scans in patients with metastatic tumor. Each radiologist was asked to identify the indicator lesions representative of each patient's tumor bulk. In the second phase of the study, 105 specific foci on 26 combined thoracic and abdominal CT studies (including the original 24) were reviewed twice by the same three radiologists.Up to eight foci were randomly identified per patient, and each observer was asked to determine the slice with the maximum diameter for each tumor focus and to measure it in three dimensions (maximum diameter, as perpendicular, and length). RESULTS. A total of 132 tumor sites were present on the CT studies in phase 1, all of which were chosen by at least one observe a san indicator lesion. Of the 116 of these that were separate and nonoverlapped, 57 (49‰) were measured by only one observer, whereas 32 (28‰) and 27 (23‰) were measured by two or all three observers, respectively. Observers were more inclined to pick round or defined/well- defined lesions rather than irregular, oval, or poorly defined ones, although this tendency was not statistically significant. The second phase of the study showed considerable interobserver variability (15‰) in CT tumor measurement, which was worse for poorly defined and irregular lesions. Intraobserver variability in measuring individual foci was less (6‰). CONCLUSION. Radiologists interpreting thoracic and/or abdominal/pelvic CT scans for metastatic cancer should measure and report a significant number of each patient's tumor sites, especially larger ones in different anatomic areas. When interpreting a follow-up CT scan of a patient with metastatic cancer, the interpreting radiologist should remeasure the indicator lesions on the previous and on the follow-up CT scans, especially when the results will change the patient's treatment response category.

AB - OBJECTIVE. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the variability between radiologists interpreting thoracic and abdominal/pelvic CT scans in selecting specific sites of metastatic tumor for measurement (indicator lesions) and to assess interobserver and intraobserver variability in tumor measurement. MATERIALS AND METHODS. Three separate experienced radiologists were asked to review 24 combined thoracic and abdominal CT scans in patients with metastatic tumor. Each radiologist was asked to identify the indicator lesions representative of each patient's tumor bulk. In the second phase of the study, 105 specific foci on 26 combined thoracic and abdominal CT studies (including the original 24) were reviewed twice by the same three radiologists.Up to eight foci were randomly identified per patient, and each observer was asked to determine the slice with the maximum diameter for each tumor focus and to measure it in three dimensions (maximum diameter, as perpendicular, and length). RESULTS. A total of 132 tumor sites were present on the CT studies in phase 1, all of which were chosen by at least one observe a san indicator lesion. Of the 116 of these that were separate and nonoverlapped, 57 (49‰) were measured by only one observer, whereas 32 (28‰) and 27 (23‰) were measured by two or all three observers, respectively. Observers were more inclined to pick round or defined/well- defined lesions rather than irregular, oval, or poorly defined ones, although this tendency was not statistically significant. The second phase of the study showed considerable interobserver variability (15‰) in CT tumor measurement, which was worse for poorly defined and irregular lesions. Intraobserver variability in measuring individual foci was less (6‰). CONCLUSION. Radiologists interpreting thoracic and/or abdominal/pelvic CT scans for metastatic cancer should measure and report a significant number of each patient's tumor sites, especially larger ones in different anatomic areas. When interpreting a follow-up CT scan of a patient with metastatic cancer, the interpreting radiologist should remeasure the indicator lesions on the previous and on the follow-up CT scans, especially when the results will change the patient's treatment response category.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0029769512&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0029769512&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.2214/ajr.167.4.8819370

DO - 10.2214/ajr.167.4.8819370

M3 - Article

C2 - 8819370

AN - SCOPUS:0029769512

VL - 167

SP - 851

EP - 854

JO - American Journal of Roentgenology

JF - American Journal of Roentgenology

SN - 0361-803X

IS - 4

ER -