Comparison of volumetric and bidimensional measurement of the thymic gland to determine interobserver variability

Abstract

Aim: Thymic measurements should be interpreted relative to normal measurement values according to age groups and gender. Thymic gland measurement may vary between radiologists. In our study we wanted to determine the interobserver variability of thymic size measurements on CT by comparing volumetric calculations to commonly used bidimensional measurements. Material and Method: The chest CT scans of 156 patients who had any oncological problems or disorders influencing the thymic size were retrospectively evaluated. The shape (quadrilateral or triangular), anteroposterior (AP) and transverse (TR) diameters, as well as the thickness of each lobe and thymus volume were measured independently by two radiologists. Interobserver variability was determined according to these parameters by Pearson correlation test. Results: The shape of the thymic gland was triangular in 72% (n:113) and quadrilateral in 28% (n: 43) of all subjects. According to the results of the correlation test, a moderate relationship in terms of AP length, a weak relationship in terms of TR length, a negligible relationship in terms of right lobe thickness and a weak relationship in terms of left lobe thickness were obtained, but a very strong relationship was found between the two radiologists for volumetric measurements. Conclusions: Volumetric measurements can be used as a basis for thymic imaging, reducing the differences among radiologists, and unnecessary and advanced examinations can be avoided.

Keywords

• Thymus gland
• Volumetric measures
• Bidimentional measures
• Computerized Tomography

References

1. Aw D, Silva AB, Palmer DB. Immunosenescence: emerging challenges for an ageing population. Immunology 2007; 120: 435–46.
2. Elmore S. Enhanced histopathology evaluation of thymus. Toxicol Pathol 2006; 34: 656–65.
3. Araki T, Nishino M, Gao W, et al. Normal thymus in adults. appearance on CT and associations with age, sex, BMI and smoking. Eur Radiol 2016; 26: 15-24.
4. Baron R, Lee J, Sagel S, et al. Computed tomography of the normal thymus. Radiology 1982; 142: 121–5.
5. Francis I, Glazer G, Bookstein F, et al. The thymus: reexamination of age-related changes in size and shape. Am J Roentgenol 1985; 145: 249–54.
6. Ackman JB, Kovacina B, Carter BW, et al. Sex difference in normal thymic appearance in adults 20-30 years of age. Radiology 2013; 268: 245–53.
7. Araki T, Sholl LM, Gerbaudo VH, et al. Imaging characteristics of pathologically proven thymic hyperplasia: identifying features that can differentiate true from lymphoid hyperplasia. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2014; 202: 471–8.
8. Singla S, Litzky LA, Kaiser LR, et al. Should asymptomatic enlarged thymus glands be resected? J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2010; 140: 977–83.

9. Ackman JB, Mino-Kenudson M, Morse CR. Nonsuppressing normal thymus on chemical shift magnetic resonance imaging in a young woman. J Thorac Imaging 2012; 27: 196–8.
10. Simanovsky N, Hiller N, Loubashevsky N, et al. Normal CT characteristics of the thymus in adults. Eur J Radiol 2012; 81: 3581-6.
11. Prodhomme O, Seguret F, Martrille L, et al. Organ volume measurements: comparison between MRI and autopsy findings in infants following sudden unexpected death. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed  2012; 97: 434-8.
12. Araki T, Sholl LM, Gerbaudo VH, et al. Thymic measurements in pathologically proven normal thymus and thymic hyperplasia: intraobserver and interobserver variabilities. Acad Radiol 2014; 21: 733-42.
13. McErlean A, Panicek DM, Zabor EC, et al. Intra- and interobserver variability in CT measurements in oncology. Radiology 2013; 269: 451-9.