OBJECTIVE: To differentiate pre-invasive lesion from invasive pulmonary adenocarcinoma (IPA) appearing as ground-glass nodules (GGNs) using CT features. METHODS: 149 GGNs were enrolled in this study, with 74 pure GGNs (p-GGNs) and 75 mixed GGNs (m-GGNs). Firstly, univariate analysis was used to analyse the difference of CT features between pre-invasive lesion and IPA. Then, multivariate analysis was conducted to identify variables that could independently differentiate pre-invasive lesion from IPA. Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis was performed to evaluate the differentiating value of identified variables. RESULTS: In the p-GGNs, multivariate analysis showed that the amount of blood vessels was an independent risk factor. Using the amount of blood vessels "≥1" as the diagnostic criterion, we could diagnose IPA with a sensitivity of 100%. Using the amount of blood vessels "=0" as the diagnostic criterion, we could diagnose pre-invasive lesions with a specificity of 100%. In the m-GGNs, multivariate analysis showed that the volume of solid portion (VSolid) and pleural indentation were two independent risk factors. One further model was constructed using these two variables: model = 2.508 × (VSolid + 1.407) × (pleural indentation - 1.016). Using the new model, improved diagnostic ability was achieved compared with using VSolid or pleural indentation alone. CONCLUSION: The amount of blood vessels through the p-GGNs would be an important criterion during clinical management, while VSolid and pleural indentation seemed important for m-GGNs. Moreover, the new model could further improve the differentiating value for m-GGNs. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: CT features are useful in differentiating pre-invasive lesion from IPA appearing as GGNs.
OBJECTIVE: To differentiate pre-invasive lesion from invasive pulmonary adenocarcinoma (IPA) appearing as ground-glass nodules (GGNs) using CT features. METHODS: 149 GGNs were enrolled in this study, with 74 pure GGNs (p-GGNs) and 75 mixed GGNs (m-GGNs). Firstly, univariate analysis was used to analyse the difference of CT features between pre-invasive lesion and IPA. Then, multivariate analysis was conducted to identify variables that could independently differentiate pre-invasive lesion from IPA. Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis was performed to evaluate the differentiating value of identified variables. RESULTS: In the p-GGNs, multivariate analysis showed that the amount of blood vessels was an independent risk factor. Using the amount of blood vessels "≥1" as the diagnostic criterion, we could diagnose IPA with a sensitivity of 100%. Using the amount of blood vessels "=0" as the diagnostic criterion, we could diagnose pre-invasive lesions with a specificity of 100%. In the m-GGNs, multivariate analysis showed that the volume of solid portion (VSolid) and pleural indentation were two independent risk factors. One further model was constructed using these two variables: model = 2.508 × (VSolid + 1.407) × (pleural indentation - 1.016). Using the new model, improved diagnostic ability was achieved compared with using VSolid or pleural indentation alone. CONCLUSION: The amount of blood vessels through the p-GGNs would be an important criterion during clinical management, while VSolid and pleural indentation seemed important for m-GGNs. Moreover, the new model could further improve the differentiating value for m-GGNs. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: CT features are useful in differentiating pre-invasive lesion from IPA appearing as GGNs.
Authors: Lijuan Zhang; David F Yankelevitz; Darryl Carter; Claudia I Henschke; Rowena Yip; Anthony P Reeves Journal: Radiology Date: 2012-04 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: R Kakinuma; H Ohmatsu; M Kaneko; K Eguchi; T Naruke; K Nagai; Y Nishiwaki; A Suzuki; N Moriyama Journal: Radiology Date: 1999-07 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Jos A Stigt; Steven M Uil; Ad H Oostdijk; James E Boers; Jan-Willem K van den Berg; Harry J M Groen Journal: Clin Lung Cancer Date: 2012-04-11 Impact factor: 4.785
Authors: M Noguchi; A Morikawa; M Kawasaki; Y Matsuno; T Yamada; S Hirohashi; H Kondo; Y Shimosato Journal: Cancer Date: 1995-06-15 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Hyungjin Kim; Chang Min Park; Sunkyung Jeon; Jong Hyuk Lee; Su Yeon Ahn; Roh-Eul Yoo; Hyun-Ju Lim; Juil Park; Woo Hyeon Lim; Eui Jin Hwang; Sang Min Lee; Jin Mo Goo Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2018-05-24 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Kaman Chung; Colin Jacobs; Ernst T Scholten; Onno M Mets; Irma Dekker; Mathias Prokop; Bram van Ginneken; Cornelia M Schaefer-Prokop Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2017-04-24 Impact factor: 5.315