Calibration strategies for use of the nanoDot OSLD in CT applications.

Aluminum oxide based optically stimulated luminescent dosimeters (OSLD) have been recognized as a useful dosimeter for measuring CT dose, particularly for patient dose measurements. Despite the increasing use of this dosimeter, appropriate dosimeter calibration techniques have not been established in the literature; while the manufacturer offers a calibration procedure, it is known to have relatively large uncertainties. The purpose of this work was to evaluate two clinical approaches for calibrating these dosimeters for CT applications, and to determine the uncertainty associated with measurements using these techniques. Three unique calibration procedures were used to calculate dose for a range of CT conditions using a commercially available OSLD and reader. The three calibration procedures included calibration (a) using the vendor-provided method, (b) relative to a 120 kVp CT spectrum in air, and (c) relative to a megavoltage beam (implemented with 60 Co). The dose measured using each of these approaches was compared to dose measured using a calibrated farmer-type ion chamber. Finally, the uncertainty in the dose measured using each approach was determined. For the CT and megavoltage calibration methods, the dose measured using the OSLD nanoDot was within 5% of the dose measured using an ion chamber for a wide range of different CT scan parameters (80-140 kVp, and with measurements at a range of positions). When calibrated using the vendor-recommended protocol, the OSLD measured doses were on average 15.5% lower than ion chamber doses. Two clinical calibration techniques have been evaluated and are presented in this work as alternatives to the vendor-provided calibration approach. These techniques provide high precision for OSLD-based measurements in a CT environment

An Architecture for Computer-Aided Detection and Radiologic Measurement of Lung Nodules in Clinical Trials

Computer tomography (CT) imaging plays an important role in cancer detection and quantitative assessment in clinical trials. High-resolution imaging studies on large cohorts of patients generate vast data sets, which are infeasible to analyze through manual interpretation

Integrated Multimedia Timeline of Medical Images and Data for Thoracic Oncology Patients

A prototype multimedia medical database has been developed to provide image and textual data for thoracic oncology patients undergoing treatment of advanced malignancies. The database integrates image data from the hospital pieture archiving and communication system with textual reports from the radiology information system, alphanumeric data contained in the hospital information system, and other electronic medical data. The database presents information in a timeline format and also contains visualization programs that permit the user to view and annotate radiographic measurements in tabular or graphic form. The database provides an efficient and intuitive display of the changing status of oncology patients. The ability to integrate, manage, and access relevant multimedia information may substantially enhance communication among distributed multidisciplinary health care providers and may ensure greater consistency and completeness of patient-related data

RECORDS: Improved reporting of Monte Carlo radiation transport studies: Report of the AAPM Research Committee Task Group 268

© 2017 American Association of Physicists in Medicine. Studies involving Monte Carlo simulations are common in both diagnostic and therapy medical physics research, as well as other fields of basic and applied science. As with all experimental studies, the conditions and parameters used for Monte Carlo simulations impact their scope, validity, limitations, and generalizability. Unfortunately, many published peer-reviewed articles involving Monte Carlo simulations do not provide the level of detail needed for the reader to be able to properly assess the quality of the simulations. The American Association of Physicists in Medicine Task Group #268 developed guidelines to improve reporting of Monte Carlo studies in medical physics research. By following these guidelines, manuscripts submitted for peer-review will include a level of relevant detail that will increase the transparency, the ability to reproduce results, and the overall scientific value of these studies. The guidelines include a checklist of the items that should be included in the Methods, Results, and Discussion sections of manuscripts submitted for peer-review. These guidelines do not attempt to replace the journal reviewer, but rather to be a tool during the writing and review process. Given the varied nature of Monte Carlo studies, it is up to the authors and the reviewers to use this checklist appropriately, being conscious of how the different items apply to each particular scenario. It is envisioned that this list will be useful both for authors and for reviewers, to help ensure the adequate description of Monte Carlo studies in the medical physics literature.Postprint (published version

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

Assessment of Radiologist Performance in the Detection of Lung Nodules

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: 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 on computed tomography (CT) scans. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-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. RESULTS: The 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. CONCLUSION: 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, since even experienced thoracic radiologists may not perform well when measured against the “truth” established by other experienced thoracic radiologists

Erratum: Semiâ automated pulmonary nodule interval segmentation using the NLST data

Peer Reviewedhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/144604/1/mp12905_am.pdfhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/144604/2/mp12905.pd

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

Evaluation of lung MDCT nodule annotation across radiologists and methods

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: Integral to the mission of the National Institutes of Health–sponsored Lung Imaging Database Consortium is the accurate definition of the spatial location of pulmonary nodules. Because the majority of small lung nodules are not resected, a reference standard from histopathology is generally unavailable. Thus assessing the source of variability in defining the spatial location of lung nodules by expert radiologists using different software tools as an alternative form of truth is necessary. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The relative differences in performance of six radiologists each applying three annotation methods to the task of defining the spatial extent of 23 different lung nodules were evaluated. The variability of radiologists’ spatial definitions for a nodule was measured using both volumes and probability maps (p-map). Results were analyzed using a linear mixed-effects model that included nested random effects. RESULTS: Across the combination of all nodules, volume and p-map model parameters were found to be significant at P < .05 for all methods, all radiologists, and all second-order interactions except one. The radiologist and methods variables accounted for 15% and 3.5% of the total p-map variance, respectively, and 40.4% and 31.1% of the total volume variance, respectively. CONCLUSION: Radiologists represent the major source of variance as compared with drawing tools independent of drawing metric used. Although the random noise component is larger for the p-map analysis than for volume estimation, the p-map analysis appears to have more power to detect differences in radiologist-method combinations. The standard deviation of the volume measurement task appears to be proportional to nodule volume