Sang Min Lee1, Jin Mo Goo, Kyung Hee Lee, Doo Hyun Chung, Jaemoon Koh, Chang Min Park. 1. Department of Radiology, Seoul National University College of Medicine, and Institute of Radiation Medicine, Seoul National University Medical Research Center, 101 Daehak-ro, Jongno-gu, Seoul, 110-744, Korea.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: We aimed to retrospectively investigate CT findings of minimally invasive adenocarcinoma (MIA) and to determine the appropriate method for measurement of solid portions in MIAs at CT. METHODS: From May 2012 to April 2014, 55 pulmonary nodules in 52 patients were pathologically confirmed as MIAs and were included in this study. CT findings of MIAs and measurements of solid portions at CT were evaluated by two independent radiologists. RESULTS: Mean size of MIAs was 10.5 mm ± 4.8 (range, 4-28 mm). Fifty-two MIAs manifested as 28 pure ground glass nodules (GGNs) (53.8 % %), 22 part-solid GGNs (42.3 % %), and 2 two solid nodules (3.8 % %) at CT. Lobulated border, bubble lucency, and pleural retraction were frequently found in both observers (26.9-42.3 % %). Differences according to window settings between solid portion size and invasive component size were not significantly different in both observers (p > 0.05). As for interobserver agreement, 95 % CIs for solid portion size in the mediastinal window setting (-2.2 to 3.4; mean, 0.6) were slightly narrower than those in the lung window setting (-2.6 to 3.1; mean, 0.3). CONCLUSIONS: Nearly all MIAs appear as pure and part-solid GGNs. Mediastinal and lung window settings can be applied for measurement of solid portions at CT without a significant difference. KEY POINTS: • Nearly all MIAs appear as pure and part-solid GGNs. • MIAs show frequent interval growth at follow-up. • MIAs with solid portion ≥5 mm ranged from 7.7 % to 19.2 %. • Mediastinal and lung window settings can be applied for solid portion measurement.
OBJECTIVES: We aimed to retrospectively investigate CT findings of minimally invasive adenocarcinoma (MIA) and to determine the appropriate method for measurement of solid portions in MIAs at CT. METHODS: From May 2012 to April 2014, 55 pulmonary nodules in 52 patients were pathologically confirmed as MIAs and were included in this study. CT findings of MIAs and measurements of solid portions at CT were evaluated by two independent radiologists. RESULTS: Mean size of MIAs was 10.5 mm ± 4.8 (range, 4-28 mm). Fifty-two MIAs manifested as 28 pure ground glass nodules (GGNs) (53.8 % %), 22 part-solid GGNs (42.3 % %), and 2 two solid nodules (3.8 % %) at CT. Lobulated border, bubble lucency, and pleural retraction were frequently found in both observers (26.9-42.3 % %). Differences according to window settings between solid portion size and invasive component size were not significantly different in both observers (p > 0.05). As for interobserver agreement, 95 % CIs for solid portion size in the mediastinal window setting (-2.2 to 3.4; mean, 0.6) were slightly narrower than those in the lung window setting (-2.6 to 3.1; mean, 0.3). CONCLUSIONS: Nearly all MIAs appear as pure and part-solid GGNs. Mediastinal and lung window settings can be applied for measurement of solid portions at CT without a significant difference. KEY POINTS: • Nearly all MIAs appear as pure and part-solid GGNs. • MIAs show frequent interval growth at follow-up. • MIAs with solid portion ≥5 mm ranged from 7.7 % to 19.2 %. • Mediastinal and lung window settings can be applied for solid portion measurement.
Authors: Chang Min Park; Jin Mo Goo; Hyun Ju Lee; Chang Hyun Lee; Eun Ju Chun; Jung-Gi Im Journal: Radiographics Date: 2007 Mar-Apr Impact factor: 5.333
Authors: William D Travis; Kavita Garg; Wilbur A Franklin; Ignacio I Wistuba; Bradley Sabloff; Masayuki Noguchi; Ryutaro Kakinuma; Maureen Zakowski; Michelle Ginsberg; Robert Padera; Francine Jacobson; Bruce E Johnson; Fred Hirsch; Elizabeth Brambilla; Douglas B Flieder; Kim R Geisinger; Frederik Thunnisen; Keith Kerr; David Yankelevitz; Teri J Franks; Jeffrey R Galvin; Douglas W Henderson; Andrew G Nicholson; Philip S Hasleton; Victor Roggli; Ming-Sound Tsao; Federico Cappuzzo; Madeline Vazquez Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2005-05-10 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Amgad El-Sherif; William E Gooding; Ricardo Santos; Brian Pettiford; Peter F Ferson; Hiran C Fernando; Susan J Urda; James D Luketich; Rodney J Landreneau Journal: Ann Thorac Surg Date: 2006-08 Impact factor: 4.330
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: Alain C Borczuk; Fang Qian; Angeliki Kazeros; Jennifer Eleazar; Adel Assaad; Joshua R Sonett; Mark Ginsburg; Lyall Gorenstein; Charles A Powell Journal: Am J Surg Pathol Date: 2009-03 Impact factor: 6.394
Authors: Hyun Ju Lee; Jin Mo Goo; Chang Hyun Lee; Chul-Gyu Yoo; Young Tae Kim; Jung-Gi Im Journal: Korean J Radiol Date: 2007 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 3.500