Pure and Part-Solid Pulmonary Ground-Glass Nodules: Measurement Variability of Volume and Mass in Nodules with a Solid Portion Less than or Equal to 5 mm

Published Online:https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.13121849

Mass measurement of ground-glass nodules by using a commercial volumetric software program showed variability of −17.7% to 18.6% and can be a useful method in the follow-up of nodules with solid portions less than or equal to 5 mm.


To prospectively assess and compare the measurement variability of volume and mass for pure and part-solid ground-glass nodules (GGNs) with solid portions less than or equal to 5 mm by using a commercially available volumetric software program.

Materials and Methods

This prospective study was approved by the institutional review board. Written informed consent was obtained. From November 2011 to June 2012, 73 patients (26 men and 47 women) with 94 GGNs (>5 mm and <20 mm; 72 pure and 22 part-solid GGNs) were prospectively enrolled and underwent two consecutive computed tomographic (CT) examinations. Both the volume and mass of GGNs were measured with volumetric software by two radiologists. Intraobserver, interobserver, and interscan variability were analyzed and compared by using the Bland-Altman method and coefficients of variation. The influence of the solid portion of GGNs and GGN size on interscan variability was investigated with multiple linear regression analysis and analysis of variance.


Nodule segmentation was successful in 420 of 438 (95.9%) segmentations. As for volume measurement, interscan variability ranged from −17.3% to 18.5%, while intraobserver and interobserver variability ranged from −7.6% to 8.5% and from −11.7% to 18.1%, respectively. Interscan variability in mass measurement ranged from −17.7% to 18.6%, while intraobserver and interobserver variability ranged from −8.4% to 9.4% and from −17.5% to 11.8%, respectively. In the coefficient of variation comparison, there were no significant differences in volume and mass measurements for intraobserver, interscan, and interobserver variability. Measurement variability of volume and mass was not significantly influenced by the presence of a solid portion, solid portion size, or GGN size.


Mass measurement of GGNs showed measurement variability from −17.7% to 18.6% and may be a useful method in the follow-up of GGNs with solid portions less than or equal to 5 mm.

© RSNA, 2013


  • 1. Hansell DM, Bankier AA, MacMahon H, McLoud TC, Müller NL, Remy J. Fleischner Society: glossary of terms for thoracic imaging. Radiology 2008;246(3):697–722. LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 2. Park CM, Goo JM, Lee HJ, Kim KG, Kang MJ, Shin YH. Persistent pure ground-glass nodules in the lung: interscan variability of semiautomated volume and attenuation measurements. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2010;195(6):W408–W414. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 3. Godoy MCB, Naidich DP. Subsolid pulmonary nodules and the spectrum of peripheral adenocarcinomas of the lung: recommended interim guidelines for assessment and management. Radiology 2009;253(3):606–622. LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 4. Henschke CI, Yankelevitz DF, Mirtcheva R, et al. CT screening for lung cancer: frequency and significance of part-solid and nonsolid nodules. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2002;178(5):1053–1057. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 5. Park CM, Goo JM, Lee HJ, Lee CH, Chun EJ, Im JG. Nodular ground-glass opacity at thin-section CT: histologic correlation and evaluation of change at follow-up. RadioGraphics 2007;27(2):391–408. LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 6. de Hoop B, Gietema H, van de Vorst S, Murphy K, van Klaveren RJ, Prokop M. Pulmonary ground-glass nodules: increase in mass as an early indicator of growth. Radiology 2010;255(1):199–206. LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 7. Goo JM. A computer-aided diagnosis for evaluating lung nodules on chest CT: the current status and perspective. Korean J Radiol 2011;12(2):145–155. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 8. Gietema HA, Schaefer-Prokop CM, Mali WP, Groenewegen G, Prokop M. Pulmonary nodules: Interscan variability of semiautomated volume measurements with multisection CT—influence of inspiration level, nodule size, and segmentation performance. Radiology 2007;245(3):888–894. LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 9. Goo JM, Kim KG, Gierada DS, Castro M, Bae KT. Volumetric measurements of lung nodules with multi-detector row CT: effect of changes in lung volume. Korean J Radiol 2006;7(4):243–248. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 10. Kostis WJ, Yankelevitz DF, Reeves AP, Fluture SC, Henschke CI. Small pulmonary nodules: reproducibility of three-dimensional volumetric measurement and estimation of time to follow-up CT. Radiology 2004;231(2):446–452. LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 11. Travis WD, Brambilla E, Noguchi M, et al. International association for the study of lung cancer/american thoracic society/european respiratory society international multidisciplinary classification of lung adenocarcinoma. J Thorac Oncol 2011;6(2):244–285. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 12. Naidich DP, Bankier AA, MacMahon H, et al. Recommendations for the management of subsolid pulmonary nodules detected at CT: a statement from the Fleischner Society. Radiology 2013;266(1):304–317. LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 13. Mull RT. Mass estimates by computed tomography: physical density from CT numbers. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1984;143(5):1101–1104. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 14. de Hoop B, Gietema H, van Ginneken B, Zanen P, Groenewegen G, Prokop M. A comparison of six software packages for evaluation of solid lung nodules using semi-automated volumetry: what is the minimum increase in size to detect growth in repeated CT examinations. Eur Radiol 2009;19(4):800–808. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 15. Kakinuma R, Kodama K, Yamada K, et al. Performance evaluation of 4 measuring methods of ground-glass opacities for predicting the 5-year relapse-free survival of patients with peripheral nonsmall cell lung cancer: a multicenter study. J Comput Assist Tomogr 2008;32(5):792–798. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 16. Bankier AA, Kressel HY. Through the Looking Glass revisited: the need for more meaning and less drama in the reporting of dose and dose reduction in CT. Radiology 2012;265(1):4–8. LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 17. American Association of Physicists in Medicine. Size-Specific dose estimates (SSDE) in pediatric and adult body CT examinations. Task Group 204. College Park, Md: American Association of Physicists in Medicine, 2011. Google Scholar
  • 18. Gavrielides MA, Kinnard LM, Myers KJ, Petrick N. Noncalcified lung nodules: volumetric assessment with thoracic CT. Radiology 2009;251(1):26–37. LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 19. Takahashi S, Tanaka N, Okimoto T, et al. Long term follow-up for small pure ground-glass nodules: implications of determining an optimum follow-up period and high-resolution CT findings to predict the growth of nodules. Jpn J Radiol 2012;30(3):206–217. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 20. Kim HY, Shim YM, Lee KS, Han J, Yi CA, Kim YK. Persistent pulmonary nodular ground-glass opacity at thin-section CT: histopathologic comparisons. Radiology 2007;245(1):267–275. LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 21. Lee SM, Park CM, Goo JM, et al. Transient part-solid nodules detected at screening thin-section CT for lung cancer: comparison with persistent part-solid nodules. Radiology 2010;255(1):242–251. LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 22. Radzikowska E, Głaz P, Roszkowski K. Lung cancer in women: age, smoking, histology, performance status, stage, initial treatment and survival. Population-based study of 20 561 cases. Ann Oncol 2002;13(7):1087–1093. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar

Article History

Received August 15, 2012; revision requested October 9; revision received February 24, 2013; accepted March 25; final version accepted April 29.
Published online: Nov 2013
Published in print: Nov 2013