Julien G Cohen1,2, Jin Mo Goo3,4, Roh-Eul Yoo1, Chang Min Park1,5, Chang Hyun Lee1, Bram van Ginneken6, Doo Hyun Chung7, Young Tae Kim5,8. 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. 2. Clinique Universitaire de Radiologie et Imagerie Médicale (CURIM), Université Joseph Fourier, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Grenoble, CS 10217, 38043, Grenoble Cedex 9, France. 3. 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. jmgoo@plaza.snu.ac.kr. 4. Cancer Research Institute, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea. jmgoo@plaza.snu.ac.kr. 5. Cancer Research Institute, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea. 6. Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Center, Geert Grooteplein 10, 6525 GA, Nijmegen, The Netherlands. 7. Department of Pathology, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea. 8. Department of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the performance of software in segmenting ground-glass and solid components of subsolid nodules in pulmonary adenocarcinomas. METHOD: Seventy-three pulmonary adenocarcinomas manifesting as subsolid nodules were included. Two radiologists measured the maximal axial diameter of the ground-glass components on lung windows and that of the solid components on lung and mediastinal windows. Nodules were segmented using software by applying five (-850 HU to -650 HU) and nine (-130 HU to -500 HU) attenuation thresholds. We compared the manual and software measurements of ground-glass and solid components with pathology measurements of tumour and invasive components. RESULTS: Segmentation of ground-glass components at a threshold of -750 HU yielded mean differences of +0.06 mm (p = 0.83, 95 % limits of agreement, 4.51 to 4.67) and -2.32 mm (p < 0.001, -8.27 to 3.63) when compared with pathology and manual measurements, respectively. For solid components, mean differences between the software (at -350 HU) and pathology measurements and between the manual (lung and mediastinal windows) and pathology measurements were -0.12 mm (p = 0.74, -5.73 to 5.55]), 0.15 mm (p = 0.73, -6.92 to 7.22), and -1.14 mm (p < 0.001, -7.93 to 5.64), respectively. CONCLUSION: Software segmentation of ground-glass and solid components in subsolid nodules showed no significant difference with pathology. KEY POINTS: • Software can effectively segment ground-glass and solid components in subsolid nodules. • Software measurements show no significant difference with pathology measurements. • Manual measurements are more accurate on lung windows than on mediastinal windows.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the performance of software in segmenting ground-glass and solid components of subsolid nodules in pulmonary adenocarcinomas. METHOD: Seventy-three pulmonary adenocarcinomas manifesting as subsolid nodules were included. Two radiologists measured the maximal axial diameter of the ground-glass components on lung windows and that of the solid components on lung and mediastinal windows. Nodules were segmented using software by applying five (-850 HU to -650 HU) and nine (-130 HU to -500 HU) attenuation thresholds. We compared the manual and software measurements of ground-glass and solid components with pathology measurements of tumour and invasive components. RESULTS: Segmentation of ground-glass components at a threshold of -750 HU yielded mean differences of +0.06 mm (p = 0.83, 95 % limits of agreement, 4.51 to 4.67) and -2.32 mm (p < 0.001, -8.27 to 3.63) when compared with pathology and manual measurements, respectively. For solid components, mean differences between the software (at -350 HU) and pathology measurements and between the manual (lung and mediastinal windows) and pathology measurements were -0.12 mm (p = 0.74, -5.73 to 5.55]), 0.15 mm (p = 0.73, -6.92 to 7.22), and -1.14 mm (p < 0.001, -7.93 to 5.64), respectively. CONCLUSION: Software segmentation of ground-glass and solid components in subsolid nodules showed no significant difference with pathology. KEY POINTS: • Software can effectively segment ground-glass and solid components in subsolid nodules. • Software measurements show no significant difference with pathology measurements. • Manual measurements are more accurate on lung windows than on mediastinal windows.
Authors: Dag Wormanns; Gerhard Kohl; Ernst Klotz; Anke Marheine; Florian Beyer; Walter Heindel; Stefan Diederich Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2003-11-13 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Chang Min Park; Jin Mo Goo; Hyun Ju Lee; Kwang Gi Kim; Mi-Jin Kang; Yong Hwan Shin Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2010-12 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: David R Gandara; Denise Aberle; Derick Lau; James Jett; Tim Akhurst; Robert Heelan; James Mulshine; Christine Berg; Edward F Patz Journal: J Thorac Oncol Date: 2006-11 Impact factor: 15.609
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; Hyungjin Kim; Su Bin Park; Bram van Ginneken; Gilbert R Ferretti; Chang Hyun Lee; Jin Mo Goo; Chang Min Park Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2017-01-05 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