Pulmonary Ground-Glass Nodules: Increase in Mass as an Early Indicator of Growth

Published Online:https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.09090571

CT mass measurements can enable detection of growth of ground-glass nodules earlier and are subject to less variability than are volume or diameter measurements.


To compare manual measurements of diameter, volume, and mass of pulmonary ground-glass nodules (GGNs) to establish which method is best for identifying malignant GGNs by determining change across time.

Materials and Methods

In this ethics committee–approved retrospective study, baseline and follow-up CT examinations of 52 GGNs detected in a lung cancer screening trial were included, resulting in 127 GGN data sets for evaluation. Two observers measured GGN diameter with electronic calipers, manually outlined GGNs to obtain volume and mass, and scored whether a solid component was present. Observer 1 repeated all measurements after 2 months. Coefficients of variation and limits of agreement were calculated by using Bland-Altman methods. In a subgroup of GGNs containing all resected malignant lesions, the ratio between intraobserver variability and growth (growth-to-variability ratio) was calculated for each measurement technique. In this subgroup, the mean time for growth to exceed the upper limit of agreement of each measurement technique was determined.


The κ values for intra- and interobserver agreement for identifying a solid component were 0.55 and 0.38, respectively. Intra- and interobserver coefficients of variation were smallest for GGN mass (P < .001). Thirteen malignant GGNs were resected. Mean growth-to-variability ratios were 11, 28, and 35 for diameter, volume, and mass, respectively (P = .03); mean times required for growth to exceed the upper limit of agreement were 715, 673, and 425 days, respectively (P = .02).


Mass measurements can enable detection of growth of GGNs earlier and are subject to less variability than are volume or diameter measurements.

© RSNA, 2010


  • 1 Henschke CI, Yankelevitz DF, Mirtcheva R, McGuinness G, McCauley D, Miettinen OS. CT screening for lung cancer: frequency and significance of part-solid and nonsolid nodules. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2002;178:1053–1057. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Hasegawa M, Sone S, Takashima S, et al.. Growth rate of small lung cancers detected on mass CT screening. Br J Radiol 2000;73:1252–1259. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Noguchi M, Morikawa A, Kawasaki M, et al.. Small adenocarcinoma of the lung: histologic characteristics and prognosis. Cancer 1995;75:2844–2852. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Nakajima R, Yokose T, Kakinuma R, Nagai K, Nishiwaki Y, Ochiai A. Localized pure ground-glass opacity on high-resolution CT: histologic characteristics. J Comput Assist Tomogr 2002;26:323–329. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Nakata M, Sawada S, Saeki H, et al.. Prospective study of thoracoscopic limited resection for ground-glass opacity selected by computed tomography. Ann Thorac Surg 2003;75:1601–1605. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Suzuki K, Asamura H, Kusumoto M, Kondo H, Tsuchiya R. “Early” peripheral lung cancer: prognostic significance of ground glass opacity on thin-section computed tomographic scan. Ann Thorac Surg 2002;74:1635–1639. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Seki N, Sawada S, Nakata M, et al.. Lung cancer with localized ground-glass attenuation represents early-stage adenocarcinoma in nonsmokers. J Thorac Oncol 2008;3:483–490. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Aoki T, Nakata H, Watanabe H, et al.. Evolution of peripheral lung adenocarcinomas: CT findings correlated with histology and tumor doubling time. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2000;174:763–768. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Kakinuma R, Ohmatsu H, Kaneko M, et al.. Progression of focal pure ground-glass opacity detected by low-dose helical computed tomography screening for lung cancer. J Comput Assist Tomogr 2004;28:17–23. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Lindell RM, Hartman TE, Swensen SJ, et al.. Five-year lung cancer screening experience: CT appearance, growth rate, location, and histologic features of 61 lung cancers. Radiology 2007;242:555–562. LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Kodama K, Higashiyama M, Yokouchi H, et al.. Natural history of pure ground-glass opacity after long-term follow-up of more than 2 years. Ann Thorac Surg 2002;73:386–392. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Yang ZG, Sone S, Takashima S, et al.. High-resolution CT analysis of small peripheral lung adenocarcinomas revealed on screening helical CT. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2001;176:1399–1407. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Lee HJ, Goo JM, Lee CH, Yoo CG, Kim YT, Im JG. Nodular ground-glass opacities on thin-section CT: size change during follow-up and pathological results. Korean J Radiol 2007;8:22–31. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Marten K, Auer F, Schmidt S, Kohl G, Rummeny E, Engelke C. Inadequacy of manual measurements compared to automated CT volumetry in assessment of treatment response of pulmonary metastases using RECIST criteria. Eur Radiol 2006;16:781–790. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Mull RT. Mass estimates by computed tomography: physical density from CT numbers. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1984;143:1101–1104. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Xu DM, Gietema H, de Koning H, et al.. Nodule management protocol of the NELSON randomised lung cancer screening trial. Lung Cancer 2006;54:177–184. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 17 van Iersel CA, de Koning HJ, Draisma G, et al.. Risk-based selection from the general population in a screening trial: selection criteria, recruitment and power for the Dutch-Belgian randomised lung cancer multi-slice CT screening trial (NELSON). Int J Cancer 2007;120:868–874. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Gietema HA, Schilham AM, van Ginneken B, van Klaveren RJ, Lammers JW, Prokop M. Monitoring of smoking-induced emphysema with CT in a lung cancer screening setting: detection of real increase in extent of emphysema. Radiology 2007;244:890–897. LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Bland JM, Altman DG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1986;1:307–310. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Bland JM, Altman DG. Measuring agreement in method comparison studies. Stat Methods Med Res 1999;8:135–160. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Cohen J. A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educ Psychol Meas 1960;20:37–46. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Hong C, Bae KT, Pilgram TK. Coronary artery calcium: accuracy and reproducibility of measurements with multi-detector row CT—assessment of effects of different thresholds and quantification methods. Radiology 2003;227:795–801. LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Revel MP, Bissery A, Bienvenu M, Aycard L, Lefort C, Frija G. Are two-dimensional CT measurements of small noncalcified pulmonary nodules reliable?. Radiology 2004;231:453–458. LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Marten K, Engelke C. Computer-aided detection and automated CT volumetry of pulmonary nodules. Eur Radiol 2007;17:888–901. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Sumikawa H, Johkoh T, Nagareda T, et al.. Pulmonary adenocarcinomas with ground-glass attenuation on thin-section CT: quantification by three-dimensional image analyzing method. Eur J Radiol 2008;65:104–111. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar

Article History

Received April 8, 2009; revision requested May 6; final revision received June 19; accepted July 31; final version accepted September 16.
Published online: Mar 10 2010
Published in print: Apr 2010