Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2018 May-Jun;19(3):516-525.
doi: 10.3348/kjr.2018.19.3.516. Epub 2018 Apr 6.

Nodule Classification on Low-Dose Unenhanced CT and Standard-Dose Enhanced CT: Inter-Protocol Agreement and Analysis of Interchangeability

Kyung Hee Lee  1 , Kyung Won Lee  1 , Ji Hoon Park  1 , Kyunghwa Han  2 , Jihang Kim  1 , Sang Min Lee  3 , Chang Min Park  4   5
Affiliations

Nodule Classification on Low-Dose Unenhanced CT and Standard-Dose Enhanced CT: Inter-Protocol Agreement and Analysis of Interchangeability

Kyung Hee Lee et al. Korean J Radiol. 2018 May-Jun.

Abstract

Objective: To measure inter-protocol agreement and analyze interchangeability on nodule classification between low-dose unenhanced CT and standard-dose enhanced CT.

Materials and methods: From nodule libraries containing both low-dose unenhanced and standard-dose enhanced CT, 80 solid and 80 subsolid (40 part-solid, 40 non-solid) nodules of 135 patients were selected. Five thoracic radiologists categorized each nodule into solid, part-solid or non-solid. Inter-protocol agreement between low-dose unenhanced and standard-dose enhanced images was measured by pooling κ values for classification into two (solid, subsolid) and three (solid, part-solid, non-solid) categories. Interchangeability between low-dose unenhanced and standard-dose enhanced CT for the classification into two categories was assessed using a pre-defined equivalence limit of 8 percent.

Results: Inter-protocol agreement for the classification into two categories {κ, 0.96 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.94-0.98)} and that into three categories (κ, 0.88 [95% CI, 0.85-0.92]) was considerably high. The probability of agreement between readers with standard-dose enhanced CT was 95.6% (95% CI, 94.5-96.6%), and that between low-dose unenhanced and standard-dose enhanced CT was 95.4% (95% CI, 94.7-96.0%). The difference between the two proportions was 0.25% (95% CI, -0.85-1.5%), wherein the upper bound CI was markedly below 8 percent.

Conclusion: Inter-protocol agreement for nodule classification was considerably high. Low-dose unenhanced CT can be used interchangeably with standard-dose enhanced CT for nodule classification.

Keywords: Classification; Computed tomography; Ground-glass nodule; Low-dose CT; Pulmonary nodules; Subsolid nodule.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1. Flowchart of nodule selection.
Numbers in parentheses represent number of patients.
Fig. 2
Fig. 2. Heatmap showing results of nodule classification.
160 nodules included 80 subsolid (non-solid [No. 1–40] and part-solid [No. 41–80]) and 80 solid nodules (No. 81–160) that were selected by stratified random sampling from nodule libraries. Five radiologists classified nodules as subsolid (non-solid [displayed as light green], part-solid [displayed as green],) or solid [displayed as dark green] using standard-dose enhanced and low-dose unenhanced CT images during two reading sessions. In this figure, nodules are arranged in order of increasing size in each of three classification categories, regardless of reading order and reading session.
Fig. 3
Fig. 3. Axial CT images of 14.6-mm nodule in right upper lobe (No. 68).
Each of five radiologists indicated same classification for this nodule (arrows), either using low-dose unenhanced CT images (A) or standard dose enhanced CT images (B) (Reader 2–5: part-solid; Reader 1: solid).
Fig. 4
Fig. 4. Axial CT images of 18-mm nodule in left upper lobe (No. 36).
A. Using low-dose unenhanced CT images, three radiologists classified nodule (arrow) as non-solid nodule, whereas two radiologists regarded this as part-solid nodule. B. All five of radiologists classified nodule (arrow) as non-solid nodule using standard-dose enhanced CT images.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. MacMahon H, Naidich DP, Goo JM, Lee KS, Leung AN, Mayo JR, et al. Guidelines for management of incidental pulmonary nodules detected on CT images: from the Fleischner Society 2017. Radiology. 2017;284:228–243. - PubMed
    1. American College of Radiology. Lung CT screening reporting and data system (Lung-RADS) [Accessed Apr 11, 2017]. Web site. https://www.acr.org/Clinical-Resources/Reporting-and-Data-Systems/Lung-Rads.
    1. National Lung Screening Trial Research Team. Aberle DR, Adams AM, Berg CD, Black WC, Clapp JD, et al. Reduced lung-cancer mortality with low-dose computed tomographic screening. N Engl J Med. 2011;365:395–409. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Jacobs C, van Rikxoort EM, Scholten ET, de Jong PA, Prokop M, Schaefer-Prokop C, et al. Solid, part-solid, or non-solid?: classification of pulmonary nodules in low-dose chest computed tomography by a computer-aided diagnosis system. Invest Radiol. 2015;50:168–173. - PubMed
    1. van Riel SJ, Sanchez CI, Bankier AA, Naidich DP, Verschakelen J, Scholten ET, et al. Observer variability for classification of pulmonary nodules on low-dose CT images and its effect on nodule management. Radiology. 2015;277:863–871. - PubMed

Publication types