Roh-Eul Yoo1,2, Jin Mo Goo3,4, Eui Jin Hwang1, Soon Ho Yoon1, Chang Hyun Lee1, Chang Min Park1,5, Soyeon Ahn6. 1. Department of Radiology, Seoul National University College of Medicine, 101 Daehak-ro, Chongno-gu, Seoul, 110-744, Korea. 2. Institute of Radiation Medicine, Seoul National University Medical Research Center, 101 Daehak-ro, Chongno-gu, Seoul, 110-744, Korea. 3. Department of Radiology, Seoul National University College of Medicine, 101 Daehak-ro, Chongno-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. Medical Research Collaborating Center, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, Seongnam-si, Korea.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To compare interobserver agreements among multiple readers and accuracy for the assessment of solid components in subsolid nodules between the lung and mediastinal window settings. METHODS: Seventy-seven surgically resected nodules with solid components smaller than 8 mm were included in this study. In both lung and mediastinal windows, five readers independently assessed the presence and size of solid component. Bootstrapping was used to compare the interobserver agreement between the two window settings. Imaging-pathology correlation was performed to evaluate the accuracy. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in the interobserver agreements between the two windows for both identification (lung windows, k = 0.51; mediastinal windows, k = 0.57) and measurements (lung windows, ICC = 0.70; mediastinal windows, ICC = 0.69) of solid components. The incidence of false negative results for the presence of invasive components and the median absolute difference between the solid component size and the invasive component size were significantly higher on mediastinal windows than on lung windows (P < 0.001 and P < 0.001, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: The lung window setting had a comparable reproducibility but a higher accuracy than the mediastinal window setting for nodule classifications and solid component measurements in subsolid nodules. KEY POINTS: • Reproducibility was similar between the two windows in nodule classifications. • Reproducibility was similar between the two windows in solid component measurements. • Accuracy for solid component assessment was higher on lung windows.
OBJECTIVES: To compare interobserver agreements among multiple readers and accuracy for the assessment of solid components in subsolid nodules between the lung and mediastinal window settings. METHODS: Seventy-seven surgically resected nodules with solid components smaller than 8 mm were included in this study. In both lung and mediastinal windows, five readers independently assessed the presence and size of solid component. Bootstrapping was used to compare the interobserver agreement between the two window settings. Imaging-pathology correlation was performed to evaluate the accuracy. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in the interobserver agreements between the two windows for both identification (lung windows, k = 0.51; mediastinal windows, k = 0.57) and measurements (lung windows, ICC = 0.70; mediastinal windows, ICC = 0.69) of solid components. The incidence of false negative results for the presence of invasive components and the median absolute difference between the solid component size and the invasive component size were significantly higher on mediastinal windows than on lung windows (P < 0.001 and P < 0.001, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: The lung window setting had a comparable reproducibility but a higher accuracy than the mediastinal window setting for nodule classifications and solid component measurements in subsolid nodules. KEY POINTS: • Reproducibility was similar between the two windows in nodule classifications. • Reproducibility was similar between the two windows in solid component measurements. • Accuracy for solid component assessment was higher on lung windows.
Authors: Erik Thunnissen; Mary Beth Beasley; Alain C Borczuk; Elisabeth Brambilla; Lucian R Chirieac; Sanja Dacic; Douglas Flieder; Adi Gazdar; Kim Geisinger; Philip Hasleton; Yuichi Ishikawa; Keith M Kerr; Sylvie Lantejoul; Yoshiro Matsuno; Yuko Minami; Andre L Moreira; Noriko Motoi; Andrew G Nicholson; Masayuki Noguchi; Daisuke Nonaka; Giuseppe Pelosi; Iver Petersen; Natasha Rekhtman; Victor Roggli; William D Travis; Ming S Tsao; Ignacio Wistuba; Haodong Xu; Yasushi Yatabe; Maureen Zakowski; Birgit Witte; Dirk Joop Kuik Journal: Mod Pathol Date: 2012-07-20 Impact factor: 7.842
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: William D Travis; Elisabeth Brambilla; Masayuki Noguchi; Andrew G Nicholson; Kim R Geisinger; Yasushi Yatabe; David G Beer; Charles A Powell; Gregory J Riely; Paul E Van Schil; Kavita Garg; John H M Austin; Hisao Asamura; Valerie W Rusch; Fred R Hirsch; Giorgio Scagliotti; Tetsuya Mitsudomi; Rudolf M Huber; Yuichi Ishikawa; James Jett; Montserrat Sanchez-Cespedes; Jean-Paul Sculier; Takashi Takahashi; Masahiro Tsuboi; Johan Vansteenkiste; Ignacio Wistuba; Pan-Chyr Yang; Denise Aberle; Christian Brambilla; Douglas Flieder; Wilbur Franklin; Adi Gazdar; Michael Gould; Philip Hasleton; Douglas Henderson; Bruce Johnson; David Johnson; Keith Kerr; Keiko Kuriyama; Jin Soo Lee; Vincent A Miller; Iver Petersen; Victor Roggli; Rafael Rosell; Nagahiro Saijo; Erik Thunnissen; Ming Tsao; David Yankelewitz Journal: J Thorac Oncol Date: 2011-02 Impact factor: 15.609
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: John H M Austin; Kavita Garg; Denise Aberle; David Yankelevitz; Keiko Kuriyama; Hyun-Ju Lee; Elisabeth Brambilla; 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: Constance de Margerie-Mellon; Ritu R Gill; Pascal Salazar; Anastasia Oikonomou; Elsie T Nguyen; Benedikt H Heidinger; Mayra A Medina; Paul A VanderLaan; Alexander A Bankier Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2020-09-03 Impact factor: 4.379