4.7 Article

Small pulmonary nodules: Volumetrically determined growth rates based on CT evaluation

期刊

RADIOLOGY
卷 217, 期 1, 页码 251-256

出版社

RADIOLOGICAL SOC NORTH AMER
DOI: 10.1148/radiology.217.1.r00oc33251

关键词

computed tomography (CT), comparative studies; computed tomography (CT), experimental studies; computed tomography (CT), thin-section; lung, nodule; lung neoplasms; lung neoplasms, diagnosis

资金

  1. NCI NIH HHS [R01-CA-63393, R01-CA-525928] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

PURPOSE: To determine the accuracy of high-resolution computed tomographic (CT) volumetric measurements of small pulmonary nodules to assess growth and malignancy status. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The accuracy of three-dimensional (3D) image extraction and isotropic resampling techniques was assessed by performing three experiments. The first experiment measured volumes in spherical synthetic nodules of two diameters (3.20 and 3.96 mm), the second measured deformable silicone synthetic nodules prior to and after their shape had been altered markedly, and the third measured nodules of various shapes and sizes. Three-dimensional techniques were used to assess growth in 13 patients for whom the final diagnosis was known and whose initial nodule diameters were less than 10 mm. By using the exponential growth model and the calculated nodule volume at two points in time, the doubling time for each subject was calculated. RESULTS: The three synthetic nodule studies revealed that the volume could be measured accurately to within +/-3%. All five malignant nodules grew, and all had doubling times less than 177 days. Some malignant nodules had asymmetric patterns of growth identified by using the 3D techniques but not the two-dimensional methods. All eight benign nodules had doubling times of 396 days or greater or showed a decrease in volume. CONCLUSION: CT volumetric measurements are highly accurate for determining volume and are useful in assessing growth of small nodules and calculating their doubling times.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据