"Will I change nodule management recommendations if I change my CAD system?"-impact of volumetric deviation between different CAD systems on lesion management.

Peters, Alan A.; Christe, Andreas; von Stackelberg, Oyunbileg; Pohl, Moritz; Kauczor, Hans-Ulrich; Heußel, Claus Peter; Wielpütz, Mark O; Ebner, Lukas (2023). "Will I change nodule management recommendations if I change my CAD system?"-impact of volumetric deviation between different CAD systems on lesion management. European radiology, 33(8), pp. 5568-5577. Springer 10.1007/s00330-023-09525-z

Preview

Text 2_Will_Peters.pdf - Published Version Available under License Creative Commons: Attribution (CC-BY). Download (1MB) | Preview

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate and compare the measurement accuracy of two different computer-aided diagnosis (CAD) systems regarding artificial pulmonary nodules and assess the clinical impact of volumetric inaccuracies in a phantom study.

METHODS

In this phantom study, 59 different phantom arrangements with 326 artificial nodules (178 solid, 148 ground-glass) were scanned at 80 kV, 100 kV, and 120 kV. Four different nodule diameters were used: 5 mm, 8 mm, 10 mm, and 12 mm. Scans were analyzed by a deep-learning (DL)-based CAD and a standard CAD system. Relative volumetric errors (RVE) of each system vs. ground truth and the relative volume difference (RVD) DL-based vs. standard CAD were calculated. The Bland-Altman method was used to define the limits of agreement (LOA). The hypothetical impact on LungRADS classification was assessed for both systems.

RESULTS

There was no difference between the three voltage groups regarding nodule volumetry. Regarding the solid nodules, the RVE of the 5-mm-, 8-mm-, 10-mm-, and 12-mm-size groups for the DL CAD/standard CAD were 12.2/2.8%, 1.3/ - 2.8%, - 3.6/1.5%, and - 12.2/ - 0.3%, respectively. The corresponding values for the ground-glass nodules (GGN) were 25.6%/81.0%, 9.0%/28.0%, 7.6/20.6%, and 6.8/21.2%. The mean RVD for solid nodules/GGN was 1.3/ - 15.2%. Regarding the LungRADS classification, 88.5% and 79.8% of all solid nodules were correctly assigned by the DL CAD and the standard CAD, respectively. 14.9% of the nodules were assigned differently between the systems.

CONCLUSIONS

Patient management may be affected by the volumetric inaccuracy of the CAD systems and hence demands supervision and/or manual correction by a radiologist.

KEY POINTS

• The DL-based CAD system was more accurate in the volumetry of GGN and less accurate regarding solid nodules than the standard CAD system. • Nodule size and attenuation have an effect on the measurement accuracy of both systems; tube voltage has no effect on measurement accuracy. • Measurement inaccuracies of CAD systems can have an impact on patient management, which demands supervision by radiologists.

Interest & Impact

Downloads

31 since deposited on 10 Mar 2023
17 in the past 12 months

Citations

5 Citations in Web of Science ®
6 Citations in Scopus

Search

in Google Scholar™

Services

Actions (login required)

Edit item

Actions (login required)

Edit item