Abstract
RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: To analyze the performances of diameter-based measurements, either using diameters, or by calculating diameter-based volumes, as compared to volume measurements in assessing growth of pulmonary adenocarcinomas manifesting as subsolid nodules on CT.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this IRB-approved, retrospective study, 74 pulmonary adenocarcinomas presenting as subsolid nodules and resected in 69 patients (21 men, 48 women, mean age 70 ± 9 years) were included. Three CTs were available for each patient. Nodule size on each CT was assessed with diameter measurements, calculated volume based on diameter measurements, and measured volume. Nodule growth was defined as an increase of measured volume ≥25% between two sequential CTs. Sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, positive and negative predictive values of diameter-based measurements for growth assessment were calculated. Nodule characteristics were compared with nonparametric tests and analysis of variance.
RESULTS: There were fewer growing nodules during CT1-CT2 interval (n = 22, 30%) than during CT2-CT3 interval (n = 33, 45%, p =.060). Specificity and negative predictive value of diameter-based measurements for growth assessment ranged respectively from 52 to 77% and 81 to 83% between CT1 and CT2, and from 66 to 76% and 79 to 90% between CT2 and CT3. Nongrowing nodules tended to be larger, regardless how size was measured, and some of these differences in size were statistically significant (p =.002 to .046).
CONCLUSION: For pulmonary adenocarcinomas presenting as subsolid nodules on CT, diameter-based assessment of nodule volume is reasonably accurate at confirming a lack of nodule growth but may overestimate actual growth, as compared to growth assessment based on measured volume.