The Reference Image Database to Evaluate Response to Therapy in Lung Cancer (RIDER) Project: A Resource for the Development of Change‐Analysis Software

Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/110105/1/cptclpt2008161.pd

The Lung Image Database Consortium (LIDC):ensuring the integrity of expert-defined "truth"

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: Computer-aided diagnostic (CAD) systems fundamentally require the opinions of expert human observers to establish “truth” for algorithm development, training, and testing. The integrity of this “truth,” however, must be established before investigators commit to this “gold standard” as the basis for their research. The purpose of this study was to develop a quality assurance (QA) model as an integral component of the “truth” collection process concerning the location and spatial extent of lung nodules observed on computed tomography (CT) scans to be included in the Lung Image Database Consortium (LIDC) public database. MATERIALS AND METHODS: One hundred CT scans were interpreted by four radiologists through a two-phase process. For the first of these reads (the “blinded read phase”), radiologists independently identified and annotated lesions, assigning each to one of three categories: “nodule ≥ 3mm,” “nodule < 3mm,” or “non-nodule ≥ 3mm.” For the second read (the “unblinded read phase”), the same radiologists independently evaluated the same CT scans but with all of the annotations from the previously performed blinded reads presented; each radiologist could add marks, edit or delete their own marks, change the lesion category of their own marks, or leave their marks unchanged. The post-unblinded-read set of marks was grouped into discrete nodules and subjected to the QA process, which consisted of (1) identification of potential errors introduced during the complete image annotation process (such as two marks on what appears to be a single lesion or an incomplete nodule contour) and (2) correction of those errors. Seven categories of potential error were defined; any nodule with a mark that satisfied the criterion for one of these categories was referred to the radiologist who assigned that mark for either correction or confirmation that the mark was intentional. RESULTS: A total of 105 QA issues were identified across 45 (45.0%) of the 100 CT scans. Radiologist review resulted in modifications to 101 (96.2%) of these potential errors. Twenty-one lesions erroneously marked as lung nodules after the unblinded reads had this designation removed through the QA process. CONCLUSION: The establishment of “truth” must incorporate a QA process to guarantee the integrity of the datasets that will provide the basis for the development, training, and testing of CAD systems

The Lung Image Database Consortium (LIDC):A comparison of different size metrics for pulmonary nodule measurements

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: 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, since the latters 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 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 uni-dimensional and two bi-dimensional 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 inter-radiologist 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 inter-observer variation was observed for all these metrics: 95% of estimated standard deviations were in the following ranges [0.49, 1.25], [0.67, 2.55], [0.78, 2.11], and [0.96, 2.69] for the three-dimensional, the uni-dimensional, and the two bi-dimensional size metrics respectively (in mm). Also a very large difference among the metrics was observed: 0.95 probability-coverage region widths for the volume estimation conditional on uni-dimensional, and the two bi-dimensional size measurements of 10mm 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 Lung Image Database Consortium (LIDC): An Evaluation of Radiologist Variability in the Identification of Lung Nodules on CT Scans

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to analyze the variability of experienced thoracic radiologists in the identification of lung nodules on 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 ≥ 3mm (diameter),” “nodule < 3mm,” or “non-nodule ≥ 3mm.” During the subsequent “unblinded read” phase, the blinded read results of all radiologists were revealed to each of the four radiologists, 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, a total of 71 lesions received “nodule ≥ 3mm” marks from at least one radiologist; however, all four radiologists assigned such marks to only 24 (33.8%) of these lesions. Following the unblinded reads, a total of 59 lesions were marked as “nodule ≥ 3 mm” by at least one radiologist. 27 (45.8%) of these lesions received such marks from all four radiologists, 3 (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 ≥ 3mm. Nevertheless, substantial variabilty remains across radiologists in the task of lung nodule identification

DICOM structured report to track patient&#39;s radiation dose to organs from abdominal CT exam.

The dramatic increase of diagnostic imaging capabilities over the past decade has contributed to increased radiation exposure to patient populations. Several factors have contributed to the increase in imaging procedures: wider availability of imaging modalities, increase in technical capabilities, rise in demand by patients and clinicians, favorable reimbursement, and lack of guidelines to control utilization. The primary focus of this research is to provide in depth information about radiation doses that patients receive as a result of CT exams, with the initial investigation involving abdominal CT exams. Current dose measurement methods (i.e. CTDIvol Computed Tomography Dose Index) do not provide direct information about a patient&#39;s organ dose. We have developed a method to determine CTDIvol normalized organ doses using a set of organ specific exponential regression equations. These exponential equations along with measured CTDIvol are used to calculate organ dose estimates from abdominal CT scans for eight different patient models. For each patient, organ dose and CTDIvol were estimated for an abdominal CT scan. We then modified the DICOM Radiation Dose Structured Report (RDSR) to store the pertinent patient information on radiation dose to their abdominal organs