Hyungjin Kim1, Jin Mo Goo2,3, Chang Min Park1,4. 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, 03080, Korea. 2. 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, 03080, Korea. jmgoo@plaza.snu.ac.kr. 3. Cancer Research Institute, Seoul National University, 101, Daehak-ro, Jongno-gu, Seoul, 03080, Korea. jmgoo@plaza.snu.ac.kr. 4. Cancer Research Institute, Seoul National University, 101, Daehak-ro, Jongno-gu, Seoul, 03080, Korea.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to investigate the diagnostic advantage of nodule mass in differentiating invasive pulmonary adenocarcinomas (IPAs) among pure ground-glass nodules (pGGNs) over other volumetric measurements. Another aim of this study was to analyse the correlation between volumetric measurements on computed tomography (CT) scans and the pathological invasive component size. METHODS: This Institutional Review Board-approved retrospective study included 117 patients (men:women = 53:64; mean age, 57.3 years) with 117 pGGNs. Semi-automatic segmentation was performed for all nodules, and volumetric measurements, such as nodule volume, attenuation, mass, two-dimensional (2D) average diameter and three-dimensional (3D) longest diameter, were obtained. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analyses were performed to evaluate the diagnostic performances of the volumetric parameters in discriminating IPAs. Spearman correlation coefficients were calculated between the volumetric measurements and the invasive component size. RESULTS: Area under the ROC curve for mass was 0.792 (95% CI, 0.691-0.872) in non-enhanced CT and 0.730 (95% CI, 0.607-0.832) in contrast-enhanced CT. Nodule mass was not superior to 2D average diameter for the differentiation of IPAs in both non-enhanced (0.792 vs 0.780; p = 0.501) CT and contrast-enhanced CT scans (0.730 vs 0.700; p = 0.319). The correlation between the volumetric measurements (mass, 3D longest diameter and 2D average diameter) and the invasive component size was moderate (Spearman's rho, 0.401-0.422) in non-enhanced CT and weak (Spearman's rho, 0.276-0.310) in contrast-enhanced CT. CONCLUSIONS: Nodule mass measurement had no strength over other volumetric parameters for the prediction of pathological invasiveness in the diagnosis of pGGNs. KEY POINTS: • Mass is not superior to other volumetric measurements for the diagnosis of pure ground-glass nodules. • Mass and two-dimensional average diameter exhibited comparable performance for the discrimination of invasive adenocarcinomas among pure ground-glass nodules. • The diagnostic performance of volumetric measurements was lower on contrast-enhanced CT scans. • The correlation between the volumetric measurements and the invasive component size was moderate on non-enhanced CT scans and weak on contrast-enhanced CT scans.
OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to investigate the diagnostic advantage of nodule mass in differentiating invasive pulmonary adenocarcinomas (IPAs) among pure ground-glass nodules (pGGNs) over other volumetric measurements. Another aim of this study was to analyse the correlation between volumetric measurements on computed tomography (CT) scans and the pathological invasive component size. METHODS: This Institutional Review Board-approved retrospective study included 117 patients (men:women = 53:64; mean age, 57.3 years) with 117 pGGNs. Semi-automatic segmentation was performed for all nodules, and volumetric measurements, such as nodule volume, attenuation, mass, two-dimensional (2D) average diameter and three-dimensional (3D) longest diameter, were obtained. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analyses were performed to evaluate the diagnostic performances of the volumetric parameters in discriminating IPAs. Spearman correlation coefficients were calculated between the volumetric measurements and the invasive component size. RESULTS: Area under the ROC curve for mass was 0.792 (95% CI, 0.691-0.872) in non-enhanced CT and 0.730 (95% CI, 0.607-0.832) in contrast-enhanced CT. Nodule mass was not superior to 2D average diameter for the differentiation of IPAs in both non-enhanced (0.792 vs 0.780; p = 0.501) CT and contrast-enhanced CT scans (0.730 vs 0.700; p = 0.319). The correlation between the volumetric measurements (mass, 3D longest diameter and 2D average diameter) and the invasive component size was moderate (Spearman's rho, 0.401-0.422) in non-enhanced CT and weak (Spearman's rho, 0.276-0.310) in contrast-enhanced CT. CONCLUSIONS: Nodule mass measurement had no strength over other volumetric parameters for the prediction of pathological invasiveness in the diagnosis of pGGNs. KEY POINTS: • Mass is not superior to other volumetric measurements for the diagnosis of pure ground-glass nodules. • Mass and two-dimensional average diameter exhibited comparable performance for the discrimination of invasive adenocarcinomas among pure ground-glass nodules. • The diagnostic performance of volumetric measurements was lower on contrast-enhanced CT scans. • The correlation between the volumetric measurements and the invasive component size was moderate on non-enhanced CT scans and weak on contrast-enhanced CT scans.
Authors: Julien G Cohen; Jin Mo Goo; Roh-Eul Yoo; Su Bin Park; Bram van Ginneken; Gilbert R Ferretti; Chang Hyun Lee; Chang Min Park Journal: Eur J Radiol Date: 2016-03-30 Impact factor: 3.528
Authors: In-Pyeong Hwang; Chang Min Park; Sang Joon Park; Sang Min Lee; Holman Page McAdams; Yoon Kyung Jeon; Jin Mo Goo Journal: Invest Radiol Date: 2015-11 Impact factor: 6.016
Authors: Lorenzo Garzelli; Jin Mo Goo; Su Yeon Ahn; Kum Ju Chae; Chang Min Park; Julip Jung; Helen Hong Journal: Eur J Radiol Date: 2018-01-31 Impact factor: 3.528
Authors: Hester A Gietema; Ying Wang; Dongming Xu; Rob J van Klaveren; Harry de Koning; Ernst Scholten; Johny Verschakelen; Gerhard Kohl; Matthijs Oudkerk; Mathias Prokop Journal: Radiology Date: 2006-08-14 Impact factor: 11.105