BACKGROUND: The differentiation of benign and malignant solitary pulmonary nodules (SPNs), especially subsolid nodules, is still challenging because of the small size, slow growth, and atypical imaging characteristics of these nodules. We aimed to determine the significance of mass growth rate (MGR) and mass doubling time (MDT) at follow-up CT of malignant SPNs. METHODS: This retrospective study included 167 patients (169 SPNs, diameter 8-30 mm). Among the 169 SPNs, 114 malignant SPNs were classified into three types: pure ground-glass nodules (pGGNs), part-solid nodules (pSNs), and solid nodules (SNs). These patients were followed up for at least 3 months. Three-dimensional manual segmentation was performed for all these nodules, and the intra- and inter-observer variabilities of diameter, volume, and mass measurement were assessed. From initial and follow-up CT scans, growth rates of the diameter, volume, and mass of the SPNs were compared. MDT and volume doubling time (VDT) were calculated and were compared among groups. RESULTS: Mass measurements had the best inter-observer consistency and intra-observer repeatability; the coefficients of variation of the mass measurements were the smallest. The mean growth rates of the diameter, volume, and mass of pGGNs, pSNs, and SNs significantly differed at different time points (P<0.001). Mean MDTs and VDTs of pGGNs, pSNs, and SNs were 655 vs. 848 days, 462 vs. 598 days, and 230 vs. 267 days, respectively (P<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Mass measurements are an objective and accurate indicator in SPN assessment. During a 2-year follow-up, the mean growth rates of the diameter, volume, and mass of pGGNs, pSNs, and SNs differed at different time points, the greatest difference was observed in mean MGR. Mean MDT of malignant SPNs is less than the mean VDT.
BACKGROUND: The differentiation of benign and malignant solitary pulmonary nodules (SPNs), especially subsolid nodules, is still challenging because of the small size, slow growth, and atypical imaging characteristics of these nodules. We aimed to determine the significance of mass growth rate (MGR) and mass doubling time (MDT) at follow-up CT of malignant SPNs. METHODS: This retrospective study included 167 patients (169 SPNs, diameter 8-30 mm). Among the 169 SPNs, 114 malignant SPNs were classified into three types: pure ground-glass nodules (pGGNs), part-solid nodules (pSNs), and solid nodules (SNs). These patients were followed up for at least 3 months. Three-dimensional manual segmentation was performed for all these nodules, and the intra- and inter-observer variabilities of diameter, volume, and mass measurement were assessed. From initial and follow-up CT scans, growth rates of the diameter, volume, and mass of the SPNs were compared. MDT and volume doubling time (VDT) were calculated and were compared among groups. RESULTS: Mass measurements had the best inter-observer consistency and intra-observer repeatability; the coefficients of variation of the mass measurements were the smallest. The mean growth rates of the diameter, volume, and mass of pGGNs, pSNs, and SNs significantly differed at different time points (P<0.001). Mean MDTs and VDTs of pGGNs, pSNs, and SNs were 655 vs. 848 days, 462 vs. 598 days, and 230 vs. 267 days, respectively (P<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Mass measurements are an objective and accurate indicator in SPN assessment. During a 2-year follow-up, the mean growth rates of the diameter, volume, and mass of pGGNs, pSNs, and SNs differed at different time points, the greatest difference was observed in mean MGR. Mean MDT of malignant SPNs is less than the mean VDT.
Entities:
Keywords:
Solitary pulmonary nodule (SPN); lung cancer; mass doubling time (MDT); mass growth rate (MGR); volume doubling time (VDT)
Authors: T Aoki; H Nakata; H Watanabe; K Nakamura; T Kasai; H Hashimoto; K Yasumoto; M Kido Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2000-03 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: James G Ravenel; William M Leue; Paul J Nietert; James V Miller; Katherine K Taylor; Gerard A Silvestri Journal: Radiology Date: 2008-05 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Yong Sub Song; Chang Min Park; Sang Joon Park; Sang Min Lee; Yoon Kyung Jeon; Jin Mo Goo Journal: Radiology Date: 2014-06-14 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Rebecca M Lindell; Thomas E Hartman; Stephen J Swensen; James R Jett; David E Midthun; Jayawant N Mandrekar Journal: Chest Date: 2009-07-06 Impact factor: 9.410
Authors: Matthias Eberhard; Daniel Stocker; Gianluca Milanese; Katharina Martini; Thi Dan Linh Nguyen-Kim; Moritz C Wurnig; Thomas Frauenfelder; Stephan Baumueller Journal: J Thorac Dis Date: 2019-08 Impact factor: 2.895
Authors: Susan Fernandes; Gareth Williams; Elvira Williams; Katjana Ehrlich; James Stone; Neil Finlayson; Mark Bradley; Robert R Thomson; Ahsan R Akram; Kevin Dhaliwal Journal: Eur Respir J Date: 2021-03-25 Impact factor: 16.671