BACKGROUND: Subsolid pulmonary nodules tend to exhibit considerably slower growth rates than solid lesions, nevertheless, higher malignancy probability. The diagnosis of indeterminate nodules largely depends on the growth evaluation during follow-up. The growth can manifested as an increase in size or the appearance and/or subsequent increase of solid components. The mass reflect the product of volume and density and can be more sensitive in growth evaluation. However, the repeatability needs a further validation. The purpose of this study is to assess the intra and inter-observer variability of mass measurement for subsolid nodules. METHODS: 80 subsolid nodules in 44 patients were retrospectively enrolled. Both the volume and mass were measured by two radiologists using blind method independently. Intra-observer and inter-observer variability were analyzed and compared by Bland-Altman method intra-class correlation test and Wilcoxon test. RESULTS: Software achieved satisfied segmentation for 92.5% nodules. Of them, 35% underwent manual modification. The 95% limits of agreement for intra-observer variability were -11.5%-10.4% for mass and -8.4%-8.8% for volume. The 95% limits of agreement for inter-observer variability were -17.4%-19.3% for mass and -17.9%-19.4% for volume.The intra-class correlation foefficients between volume and mass measument was 0.95 and 0.93 (both P<0.001) and no significant differences (P=0.78, 0.09) was found for intra- and inter-observer variability. Manual modification of the segmentation caused the worse mass measurement repeatability in spite of the reader satisfaction. CONCLUSIONS: The repeatability of mass measurement has no significant difference with that of volume measurement and may act as a reliable method in the follow-up of subsolid nodules.
BACKGROUND: Subsolid pulmonary nodules tend to exhibit considerably slower growth rates than solid lesions, nevertheless, higher malignancy probability. The diagnosis of indeterminate nodules largely depends on the growth evaluation during follow-up. The growth can manifested as an increase in size or the appearance and/or subsequent increase of solid components. The mass reflect the product of volume and density and can be more sensitive in growth evaluation. However, the repeatability needs a further validation. The purpose of this study is to assess the intra and inter-observer variability of mass measurement for subsolid nodules. METHODS: 80 subsolid nodules in 44 patients were retrospectively enrolled. Both the volume and mass were measured by two radiologists using blind method independently. Intra-observer and inter-observer variability were analyzed and compared by Bland-Altman method intra-class correlation test and Wilcoxon test. RESULTS: Software achieved satisfied segmentation for 92.5% nodules. Of them, 35% underwent manual modification. The 95% limits of agreement for intra-observer variability were -11.5%-10.4% for mass and -8.4%-8.8% for volume. The 95% limits of agreement for inter-observer variability were -17.4%-19.3% for mass and -17.9%-19.4% for volume.The intra-class correlation foefficients between volume and mass measument was 0.95 and 0.93 (both P<0.001) and no significant differences (P=0.78, 0.09) was found for intra- and inter-observer variability. Manual modification of the segmentation caused the worse mass measurement repeatability in spite of the reader satisfaction. CONCLUSIONS: The repeatability of mass measurement has no significant difference with that of volume measurement and may act as a reliable method in the follow-up of subsolid nodules.
Volume and attenuation measurement of GGN in a 55-year-old woman by using semiautomatic software program. Thin-section chest CT image in lung window setting shows 6-mm GGN in right lower lobe. A, C: the 1st measurement of observer 1, the size of the GGN is 54 mm3 and the atteunuation is -720 HU, so the mass is about 15.120 mg; B, D: the 2nd measurement of observer 1, the size of the GGN is 61 mm3 and the atteunuation is -668 HU, so the mass is about 20.252 mg. The variation of the mass and the volume is 29.0%, 12.2%. CT: computed tomography
Volume and attenuation measurement of GGN in a 53-year-old woman by using semiautomatic software program. Thin-section chest CT image in lung window setting shows 4.6-mm GGN in right middle lobe. A, C: the 1st measurement of observer 1, the size of the GGN is 89 mm3 and the atteunuation is -689 HU, so the mass is about 27.679 mg; B, D: the 2nd measurement of observer 1, the size of the GGN is 62 mm3 and the atteunuation is -653 HU, so the mass is about 21.574 mg. The variation of the mass and the volume is 25.0%, 35.8%
女,55岁,右下叶磨玻璃密度结节,直径约为6.0 mm。图A、C为观察者1第一次测量,大小为54 mm3,密度为280 mg/cm3,质量约为15.120 mg。图B、D为观察者1第二次测量,大小为61 mm3,密度为332 mg/cm3,质量约为20.252 mg。质量变异程度与体积变异程度分别为29.0%、12.2%Volume and attenuation measurement of GGN in a 55-year-old woman by using semiautomatic software program. Thin-section chest CT image in lung window setting shows 6-mm GGN in right lower lobe. A, C: the 1st measurement of observer 1, the size of the GGN is 54 mm3 and the atteunuation is -720 HU, so the mass is about 15.120 mg; B, D: the 2nd measurement of observer 1, the size of the GGN is 61 mm3 and the atteunuation is -668 HU, so the mass is about 20.252 mg. The variation of the mass and the volume is 29.0%, 12.2%. CT: computed tomography女,53岁,右中叶磨玻璃密度结节,直径约为4.6 mm。图A、C为观察者1第一次测量,大小为89 mm3,密度为311 mg/cm3,质量约为27.679 mg。图B、D为观察者1第二次测量,大小为62 mm3,密度为347 mg/cm3,质量约为21.574 mg。质量变异程度与体积变异程度分别为25.0%、35.8%Volume and attenuation measurement of GGN in a 53-year-old woman by using semiautomatic software program. Thin-section chest CT image in lung window setting shows 4.6-mm GGN in right middle lobe. A, C: the 1st measurement of observer 1, the size of the GGN is 89 mm3 and the atteunuation is -689 HU, so the mass is about 27.679 mg; B, D: the 2nd measurement of observer 1, the size of the GGN is 62 mm3 and the atteunuation is -653 HU, so the mass is about 21.574 mg. The variation of the mass and the volume is 25.0%, 35.8%
Bland-Altman plots. A: The Bland-Altman plots of intra-observer volume measurement variability; B: The Bland-Altman plots of mass measurement variability. Bland-Altman: The dash line represents the mean relative difference, the dot line represents the upper and lower value of 95% limits of agreement
Bland-Altman plots. A: The Bland-Altman plots of inter-observer volume measurement variability; B: The Bland-Altman plots of mass measurement variability. Bland-Altman: The dash line represents the mean relative difference, the dot line represents the upper and lower value of 95% limits of agreement
Bland-Altman分布图:图A为观察者内体积变异分布图,图B为观察者内质量变异分布图。实线代表均值,虚线代表 95%一致性区间的上限及下限Bland-Altman plots. A: The Bland-Altman plots of intra-observer volume measurement variability; B: The Bland-Altman plots of mass measurement variability. Bland-Altman: The dash line represents the mean relative difference, the dot line represents the upper and lower value of 95% limits of agreementBland-Altman分布图:图A为观察者间体积变异分布图,图B为观察者间质量变异分布图。实线代表均值,虚线代表 95%一致性区间的上限及下限Bland-Altman plots. A: The Bland-Altman plots of inter-observer volume measurement variability; B: The Bland-Altman plots of mass measurement variability. Bland-Altman: The dash line represents the mean relative difference, the dot line represents the upper and lower value of 95% limits of agreement
Authors: William J Kostis; David F Yankelevitz; Anthony P Reeves; Simina C Fluture; Claudia I Henschke Journal: Radiology Date: 2004-05 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: D Max Parkin; Jacques Ferlay; Maria-Paula Curado; Freddie Bray; Brenda Edwards; Hai-Rim Shin; David Forman Journal: Int J Cancer Date: 2010-12-15 Impact factor: 7.396
Authors: K Kuriyama; M Seto; T Kasugai; M Higashiyama; S Kido; Y Sawai; K Kodama; C Kuroda Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 1999-08 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Claudia I Henschke; David F Yankelevitz; Rosna Mirtcheva; Georgeann McGuinness; Dorothy McCauley; Olli S Miettinen Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2002-05 Impact factor: 3.959
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: T Kushihashi; H Munechika; K Ri; H Kubota; R Ukisu; S Satoh; H Motoya; Y Kurashita; K Soejima; M Kadokura Journal: Radiology Date: 1994-12 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Hyungjin Kim; Chang Min Park; Sungmin Woo; Sang Min Lee; Hyun-Ju Lee; Chul-Gyu Yoo; Jin Mo Goo Journal: Radiology Date: 2013-07-17 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Hyun-Ju Lee; Chang Hun Lee; Yeon Joo Jeong; Doo Hyun Chung; Jin Mo Goo; Chang Min Park; John H M Austin Journal: J Thorac Imaging Date: 2012-11 Impact factor: 3.000