OBJECTIVE: To determine whether semiautomatic volumetric software can differentiate part-solid from nonsolid pulmonary nodules and aid quantification of the solid component. METHODS: As per reference standard, 115 nodules were differentiated into nonsolid and part-solid by two radiologists; disagreements were adjudicated by a third radiologist. The diameters of solid components were measured manually. Semiautomatic volumetric measurements were used to identify and quantify a possible solid component, using different Hounsfield unit (HU) thresholds. The measurements were compared with the reference standard and manual measurements. RESULTS: The reference standard detected a solid component in 86 nodules. Diagnosis of a solid component by semiautomatic software depended on the threshold chosen. A threshold of -300 HU resulted in the detection of a solid component in 75 nodules with good sensitivity (90%) and specificity (88%). At a threshold of -130 HU, semiautomatic measurements of the diameter of the solid component (mean 2.4 mm, SD 2.7 mm) were comparable to manual measurements at the mediastinal window setting (mean 2.3 mm, SD 2.5 mm [p = 0.63]). CONCLUSION: Semiautomatic segmentation of subsolid nodules could diagnose part-solid nodules and quantify the solid component similar to human observers. Performance depends on the attenuation segmentation thresholds. This method may prove useful in managing subsolid nodules. KEY POINTS: • Semiautomatic segmentation can accurately differentiate nonsolid from part-solid pulmonary nodules • Semiautomatic segmentation can quantify the solid component similar to manual measurements • Semiautomatic segmentation may aid management of subsolid nodules following Fleischner Society recommendations • Performance for the segmentation of subsolid nodules depends on the chosen attenuation thresholds.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether semiautomatic volumetric software can differentiate part-solid from nonsolid pulmonary nodules and aid quantification of the solid component. METHODS: As per reference standard, 115 nodules were differentiated into nonsolid and part-solid by two radiologists; disagreements were adjudicated by a third radiologist. The diameters of solid components were measured manually. Semiautomatic volumetric measurements were used to identify and quantify a possible solid component, using different Hounsfield unit (HU) thresholds. The measurements were compared with the reference standard and manual measurements. RESULTS: The reference standard detected a solid component in 86 nodules. Diagnosis of a solid component by semiautomatic software depended on the threshold chosen. A threshold of -300 HU resulted in the detection of a solid component in 75 nodules with good sensitivity (90%) and specificity (88%). At a threshold of -130 HU, semiautomatic measurements of the diameter of the solid component (mean 2.4 mm, SD 2.7 mm) were comparable to manual measurements at the mediastinal window setting (mean 2.3 mm, SD 2.5 mm [p = 0.63]). CONCLUSION:Semiautomatic segmentation of subsolid nodules could diagnose part-solid nodules and quantify the solid component similar to human observers. Performance depends on the attenuation segmentation thresholds. This method may prove useful in managing subsolid nodules. KEY POINTS: • Semiautomatic segmentation can accurately differentiate nonsolid from part-solid pulmonary nodules • Semiautomatic segmentation can quantify the solid component similar to manual measurements • Semiautomatic segmentation may aid management of subsolid nodules following Fleischner Society recommendations • Performance for the segmentation of subsolid nodules depends on the chosen attenuation thresholds.
Authors: Ernst Th Scholten; Colin Jacobs; Bram van Ginneken; Martin J Willemink; Jan-Martin Kuhnigk; Peter M A van Ooijen; Matthijs Oudkerk; Willem P Th M Mali; Pim A de Jong Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2013-08 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Fabien Maldonado; Jennifer M Boland; Sushravya Raghunath; Marie Christine Aubry; Brian J Bartholmai; Mariza Deandrade; Thomas E Hartman; Ronald A Karwoski; Srinivasan Rajagopalan; Anne-Marie Sykes; Ping Yang; Eunhee S Yi; Richard A Robb; Tobias Peikert Journal: J Thorac Oncol Date: 2013-04 Impact factor: 15.609
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: K Takamochi; K Nagai; J Yoshida; K Suzuki; Y Ohde; M Nishimura; S Sasaki; Y Nishiwaki Journal: J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg Date: 2001-08 Impact factor: 5.209
Authors: David P Naidich; Alexander A Bankier; Heber MacMahon; Cornelia M Schaefer-Prokop; Massimo Pistolesi; Jin Mo Goo; Paolo Macchiarini; James D Crapo; Christian J Herold; John H Austin; William D Travis Journal: Radiology Date: 2012-10-15 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Julien G Cohen; Jin Mo Goo; Roh-Eul Yoo; Chang Min Park; Chang Hyun Lee; Bram van Ginneken; Doo Hyun Chung; Young Tae Kim Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2016-04-05 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Chara E Rydzak; Samuel G Armato; Ricardo S Avila; James L Mulshine; David F Yankelevitz; David S Gierada Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2017-10-27 Impact factor: 3.039
Authors: Finbar Foley; Srinivasan Rajagopalan; Sushravya M Raghunath; Jennifer M Boland; Ronald A Karwoski; Fabien Maldonado; Brian J Bartholmai; Tobias Peikert Journal: Semin Thorac Cardiovasc Surg Date: 2016-01-08
Authors: Hyungjin Kim; Chang Min Park; Yong Sub Song; Leonard Sunwoo; Ye Ra Choi; Jung Im Kim; Jae Hyun Kim; Jae Seok Bae; Jong Hyuk Lee; Jin Mo Goo Journal: PLoS One Date: 2016-02-09 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Jean-Paul Charbonnier; Kaman Chung; Ernst T Scholten; Eva M van Rikxoort; Colin Jacobs; Nicola Sverzellati; Mario Silva; Ugo Pastorino; Bram van Ginneken; Francesco Ciompi Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2018-01-12 Impact factor: 4.379