PURPOSE: The ground-glass opacity (GGO) of lung cancer is identified only subjectively on computed tomography (CT) images as no quantitative characteristic has been defined for GGOs. We sought to define GGOs quantitatively and to differentiate between GGOs and solid-type lung cancers semiautomatically with a computer-aided diagnosis (CAD). METHODS AND MATERIALS: High-resolution CT images of 100 pulmonary nodules (all peripheral lung cancers) were collected from our clinical records. Two radiologists traced the contours of nodules and distinguished GGOs from solid areas. The CT attenuation value of each area was measured. Differentiation between cancer types was assessed by a receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) analysis. RESULTS: The mean CT attenuation of the GGO areas was -618.4 +/- 212.2 HU, whereas that of solid areas was -68.1 +/- 230.3 HU. CAD differentiated between solidand GGO-type lung cancers with a sensitivity of 86.0% and specificity of 96.5% when the threshold value was -370 HU. Four nodules of mixed GGOs were incorrectly classified as the solid type. CAD detected 96.3% of GGO areas when the threshold between GGO and solid areas was 194 HU. CONCLUSION: Objective definition of GGO area by CT attenuation is feasible. This method is useful for semiautomatic differentiation between GGOs and solid types of lung cancer.
PURPOSE: The ground-glass opacity (GGO) of lung cancer is identified only subjectively on computed tomography (CT) images as no quantitative characteristic has been defined for GGOs. We sought to define GGOs quantitatively and to differentiate between GGOs and solid-type lung cancers semiautomatically with a computer-aided diagnosis (CAD). METHODS AND MATERIALS: High-resolution CT images of 100 pulmonary nodules (all peripheral lung cancers) were collected from our clinical records. Two radiologists traced the contours of nodules and distinguished GGOs from solid areas. The CT attenuation value of each area was measured. Differentiation between cancer types was assessed by a receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) analysis. RESULTS: The mean CT attenuation of the GGO areas was -618.4 +/- 212.2 HU, whereas that of solid areas was -68.1 +/- 230.3 HU. CAD differentiated between solidand GGO-type lung cancers with a sensitivity of 86.0% and specificity of 96.5% when the threshold value was -370 HU. Four nodules of mixed GGOs were incorrectly classified as the solid type. CAD detected 96.3% of GGO areas when the threshold between GGO and solid areas was 194 HU. CONCLUSION: Objective definition of GGO area by CT attenuation is feasible. This method is useful for semiautomatic differentiation between GGOs and solid types of lung cancer.
Authors: Madeline Vazquez; Douglas Flieder; William Travis; Darryl Carter; David F Yankelevitz; Olli S Miettinen; Claudia I Henschke Journal: Lung Cancer Date: 2003-02 Impact factor: 5.705
Authors: J H Austin; N L Müller; P J Friedman; D M Hansell; D P Naidich; M Remy-Jardin; W R Webb; E A Zerhouni Journal: Radiology Date: 1996-08 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: E A Kim; T Johkoh; K S Lee; J Han; K Fujimoto; J Sadohara; P S Yang; T Kozuka; O Honda; S Kim Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2001-12 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Hester A Gietema; Ying Wang; Dongming Xu; Rob J van Klaveren; Harry de Koning; Ernst Scholten; Johny Verschakelen; Gerhard Kohl; Matthijs Oudkerk; Mathias Prokop Journal: Radiology Date: 2006-08-14 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: K Furuya; S Murayama; H Soeda; J Murakami; Y Ichinose; H Yabuuchi; Y Katsuda; M Koga; K Masuda Journal: Acta Radiol Date: 1999-09 Impact factor: 1.990
Authors: Luca Bogoni; Jane P Ko; Jeffrey Alpert; Vikram Anand; John Fantauzzi; Charles H Florin; Chi Wan Koo; Derek Mason; William Rom; Maria Shiau; Marcos Salganicoff; David P Naidich Journal: J Digit Imaging Date: 2012-12 Impact factor: 4.056