Lung-RADS Category 4X: Does It Improve Prediction of Malignancy in Subsolid Nodules?

Published Online:https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2017161624

Application of category 4X for suspicious subsolid nodules is of added value in the Lung CT Screening Reporting and Data System and has high malignancy rates in the hands of experienced radiologists.

Purpose

To evaluate the added value of Lung CT Screening Reporting and Data System (Lung-RADS) assessment category 4X over categories 3, 4A, and 4B for differentiating between benign and malignant subsolid nodules (SSNs).

Materials and Methods

SSNs on all baseline computed tomographic (CT) scans from the National Lung Cancer Trial that would have been classified as Lung-RADS category 3 or higher were identified, resulting in 374 SSNs for analysis. An experienced screening radiologist volumetrically segmented all solid cores and located all malignant SSNs visible on baseline scans. Six experienced chest radiologists independently determined which nodules to upgrade to category 4X, a recently introduced category for lesions that demonstrate additional features or imaging findings that increase the suspicion of malignancy. Malignancy rates of purely size-based categories and category 4X were compared. Furthermore, the false-positive rates of category 4X lesions were calculated and observer variability was assessed by using Fleiss κ statistics.

Results

The observers upgraded 15%–24% of the SSNs to category 4X. The malignancy rate for 4X nodules varied from 46% to 57% per observer and was substantially higher than the malignancy rates of categories 3, 4A, and 4B SSNs without observer intervention (9%, 19%, and 23%, respectively). On average, the false-positive rate for category 4X nodules was 7% for category 3 SSNs, 7% for category 4A SSNs, and 19% for category 4B SSNs. Of the falsely upgraded benign lesions, on average 27% were transient. The agreement among the observers was moderate, with an average κ value of 0.535 (95% confidence interval: 0.509, 0.561).

Conclusion

The inclusion of a 4X assessment category for lesions suspicious for malignancy in a nodule management tool is of added value and results in high malignancy rates in the hands of experienced radiologists. Proof of the transient character of category 4X lesions at short-term follow-up could avoid unnecessary invasive management.

© RSNA, 2017

References

  • 1. American College of Radiology. Lung CT screening reporting and data system (Lung-RADS). http://www.acr.org/Quality-Safety/Resources/LungRADS. Published April 28, 2014. Accessed May 12, 2016. Google Scholar
  • 2. Callister ME, Baldwin DR, Akram AR, et al. British Thoracic Society guidelines for the investigation and management of pulmonary nodules. Thorax 2015;70(Suppl 2):ii1–ii54. [Published correction appears in Thorax 2015;70(12):1188.] Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 3. Manos D, Seely JM, Taylor J, Borgaonkar J, Roberts HC, Mayo JR. The Lung Reporting and Data System (LU-RADS): a proposal for computed tomography screening. Can Assoc Radiol J 2014;65(2):121–134. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 4. van Riel SJ, Sánchez CI, Bankier AA, et al. Observer variability for classification of pulmonary nodules on low-dose CT images and its effect on nodule management. Radiology 2015;277(3):863–871. LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 5. Ridge CA, Yildirim A, Boiselle PM, et al. Differentiating between subsolid and solid pulmonary nodules at CT: inter- and intraobserver agreement between experienced thoracic radiologists. Radiology 2016;278(3):888–896. LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 6. Lee KH, Goo JM, Park SJ, et al. Correlation between the size of the solid component on thin-section CT and the invasive component on pathology in small lung adenocarcinomas manifesting as ground-glass nodules. J Thorac Oncol 2014;9(1):74–82. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 7. Godoy MC, 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
  • 8. Lee HJ, Goo JM, Lee CH, et al. Predictive CT findings of malignancy in ground-glass nodules on thin-section chest CT: the effects on radiologist performance. Eur Radiol 2009;19(3):552–560. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 9. Lee SM, Park CM, Goo JM, Lee HJ, Wi JY, Kang CH. Invasive pulmonary adenocarcinomas versus preinvasive lesions appearing as ground-glass nodules: differentiation by using CT features. Radiology 2013;268(1):265–273. LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 10. Aoki T, Tomoda Y, Watanabe H, et al. Peripheral lung adenocarcinoma: correlation of thin-section CT findings with histologic prognostic factors and survival. Radiology 2001;220(3):803–809. LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 11. Xu DM, van Klaveren RJ, de Bock GH, et al. Role of baseline nodule density and changes in density and nodule features in the discrimination between benign and malignant solid indeterminate pulmonary nodules. Eur J Radiol 2009;70(3):492–498. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 12. Winer-Muram HT. The solitary pulmonary nodule. Radiology 2006;239(1):34–49. LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 13. National Lung Screening Trial Research Team, Aberle DR, Adams AM, et al. Reduced lung-cancer mortality with low-dose computed tomographic screening. N Engl J Med 2011;365(5):395–409. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 14. National Lung Screening Trial Research Team, Aberle DR, Berg CD, et al. The National Lung Screening Trial: overview and study design. Radiology 2011;258(1):243–253. LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 15. Hawkins S, Wang H, Liu Y, et al. Predicting malignant nodules from screening CT scans. J Thorac Oncol 2016;11(12):2120–2128. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 16. Way TW, Sahiner B, Chan HP, et al. Computer-aided diagnosis of pulmonary nodules on CT scans: improvement of classification performance with nodule surface features. Med Phys 2009;36(7):3086–3098. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 17. Han F, Wang H, Zhang G, et al. Texture feature analysis for computer-aided diagnosis on pulmonary nodules. J Digit Imaging 2015;28(1):99–115. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 18. Oh JY, Kwon SY, Yoon HI, et al. Clinical significance of a solitary ground-glass opacity (GGO) lesion of the lung detected by chest CT. Lung Cancer 2007;55(1):67–73. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 19. Godoy MC, Naidich DP. Overview and strategic management of subsolid pulmonary nodules. J Thorac Imaging 2012;27(4):240–248. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 20. Felix L, Serra-Tosio G, Lantuejoul S, et al. CT characteristics of resolving ground-glass opacities in a lung cancer screening programme. Eur J Radiol 2011;77(3):410–416. Crossref, MedlineGoogle 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. Lee SH, Lee SM, Goo JM, Kim KG, Kim YJ, Park CM. Usefulness of texture analysis in differentiating transient from persistent part-solid nodules (PSNs): a retrospective study. PLoS One 2014;9(1):e85167. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 23. 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
  • 24. Honda T, Kondo T, Murakami S, et al. Radiographic and pathological analysis of small lung adenocarcinoma using the new IASLC classification. Clin Radiol 2013;68(1):e21–e26. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 25. Scholten ET, de Jong PA, de Hoop B, et al. Towards a close computed tomography monitoring approach for screen detected subsolid pulmonary nodules? Eur Respir J 2015;45(3):765–773. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 26. Gulati CM, Schreiner AM, Libby DM, Port JL, Altorki NK, Gelbman BD. Outcomes of unresected ground-glass nodules with cytology suspicious for adenocarcinoma. J Thorac Oncol 2014;9(5):685–691. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 27. Yankelevitz DF, Yip R, Smith JP, et al. CT screening for lung cancer: nonsolid nodules in baseline and annual repeat rounds. Radiology 2015;277(2):555–564. LinkGoogle Scholar

Article History

Received July 12, 2016; revision requested September 19; revision received November 9; accepted November 29; final version accepted January 27, 2017.
Published online: Mar 24 2017
Published in print: July 2017