Search

Rationale and Objectives: To investigate the volume-doubling time (VDT) of histologically proved pulmonary nodules showing ground glass opacity (GGO) at multidetector CT (MDCT) using computer-aided three-dimensional volumetry., Materials and Methods: We retrospectively evaluated 47 GGO nodules (mixed n = 28, pure n = 19) that had been examined by thin-section helical CT more than once. They were histologically confirmed as atypical adenomatous hyperplasia (AAH, n = 13), bronchioloalveolar carcinoma (BAC, n = 22), and adenocarcinoma (AC, n = 12). Using computer-aided three-dimensional volumetry software, two radiologists independently performed volumetry of GGO nodules and calculated the VDT using data acquired from the initial and final CT study. We compared VDT among the three pathologies and also compared the VDT of mixed and pure GGO nodules., Results: The mean VDT of all GGO nodules was 486.4 ± 368.6 days (range 89.0-1583.0 days). The mean VDT for AAH, BAC, and AC was 859.2 ± 428.9, 421.2 ± 228.4, and 202.1 ± 84.3 days, respectively; there were statistically significant differences for all comparative combinations of AAH, BAC, and AC (Steel-Dwass test, P < .01). The mean VDT for pure and mixed GGO nodules was 628.5 ± 404.2 and 276.9 ± 155.9 days, respectively; it was significantly shorter for mixed than pure GGO nodules (Mann-Whitney U-test, P < .01)., Conclusion: The evaluation of VDT using computer-aided volumetry may be helpful in assessing the histological entities of GGO nodules., (Copyright © 2011 AUR. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: The purpose of this study was to investigate the accuracy and reproducibility of results acquired with computer-aided volumetry software during MDCT of pulmonary nodules exhibiting ground-glass opacity., Materials and Methods: To evaluate the accuracy of computer-aided volumetry software, we performed thin-section helical CT of a chest phantom that included simulated 3-, 5-, 8-, 10-, and 12-mm-diameter ground-glass opacity nodules with attenuation of -800, -630, and -450 HU. Three radiologists measured the volume of the nodules and calculated the relative volume measurement error, which was defined as follows: (measured nodule volume minus assumed nodule volume / assumed nodule volume) x 100. Two radiologists performed two independent measurements of 59 nodules in humans. Intraobserver and interobserver agreement was evaluated with Bland-Altman methods., Results: The relative volume measurement error for simulated ground-glass opacity nodules measuring 3 mm ranged from 51.1% to 85.2% and for nodules measuring 5 mm or more in diameter ranged from -4.1% to 7.1%. In the clinical study, for intraobserver agreement, the 95% limits of agreement were -14.9% and -13.7% and -16.6% to 15.7% for observers A and B. For interobserver agreement, these values were -16.3% to 23.7% for nodules 8 mm in diameter or larger., Conclusion: With computer-aided volumetry of ground-glass opacity nodules, the relative volume measurement error was small for nodules 5 mm in diameter or larger. Intraobserver and interobserver agreement was relatively high for nodules 8 mm in diameter or larger.

Purpose: To evaluate the effect of computer-aided diagnosis (CAD) on radiologists' detection of pulmonary nodules., Materials and Methods: Fifty chest computed tomographic (CT) examination cases were used. The mean nodule size was 0.81 cm +/- 0.60 (SD) (range, 0.3-2.9 cm). Alternative free-response receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis with a continuous rating scale was used to compare the observers' performance in detecting nodules with and without use of CAD. Five board-certified radiologists and five radiology residents participated in an observer performance study. First they were asked to rate the probability of nodule presence without using CAD; then they were asked to rate the probability of nodule presence by using CAD., Results: For all radiologists, the mean areas under the best-fit alternative free-response ROC curves (Az) without and with CAD were 0.64 +/- 0.08 and 0.67 +/- 0.09, respectively, indicating a significant difference (P <.01). For the five board-certified radiologists, the mean Az values without and with CAD were 0.63 +/- 0.08 and 0.66 +/- 0.09, respectively, indicating a significant difference (P <.01). For the five resident radiologists, the mean Az values without and with CAD were 0.66 +/- 0.04 and 0.68 +/- 0.04, respectively, indicating a significant difference (P =.02). At observer performance analyses, there were no significant differences in Az values obtained either without (P =.61) or with (P =.88) CAD between the board-certified radiologists and the residents. For all radiologists, in the detection of pulmonary nodules 1.0 cm in diameter or smaller, the mean Az values without and with CAD were 0.60 +/- 0.11 and 0.64 +/- 0.11, respectively, indicating a significant difference (P <.01)., Conclusion: Use of the CAD system improved the board-certified radiologists' and residents' detection of pulmonary nodules at chest CT., (Copyright RSNA, 2004)