Are Two-dimensional CT Measurements of Small Noncalcified Pulmonary Nodules Reliable?

PURPOSE: To evaluate the intra- and interreader agreement of two-dimensional computed tomographic (CT) measurements of pulmonary nodules less than 2 cm in diameter.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: Three readers independently made three serial measurements of each of 54 pulmonary nodules measuring 3–18 mm that had been observed on standard-dose multisection CT images obtained in 24 patients who ranged in age from 36 to 81 years (mean age, 54.6 years). There were 14 women (58%), who ranged in age from 43 to 81 years (mean age, 58.9 years), and 10 men (42%), who ranged in age from 36 to 65 years (mean age, 48.5 years). The largest transverse cross-sectional diameter of each nodule was measured at picture archiving and communication system, or PACS, workstations by using high-spatial-resolution reconstructed CT images and identical window settings. Intra- and interreader agreement were determined by using methods described by Bland and Altman: the coefficient of repeatability for intrareader agreement, and methods derived from the 95% limits of agreement defined by Bland and Altman for interreader agreement.

RESULTS: The repeatability coefficients were 1.70, 1.32, and 1.51 mm for readers 1, 2, and 3, respectively. The 95% limits of agreement for the difference among readers were −1.73 and 1.73.

CONCLUSION: Two-dimensional CT measurements are not reliable in the evaluation of small noncalcified pulmonary nodules.

© RSNA, 2004


  • 1 Henschke CI, McCauley DI, Yankelevitz DF, et al. Early Lung Cancer Action Project: Overall design and findings from baseline screening. Lancet 1999; 354:99-105. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Swensen SJ, Jett JR, Sloan JA, et al. Screening for lung cancer with low-dose spiral computed tomography. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2002; 165:508-513. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Boring CC, Squires TS, Tong T. Cancer statistics, 1993. CA Cancer J Clin 1993; 43:7-26. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Coleman RE, Laymon CE, Turkington TG. FDG imaging of lung nodules: a phantom study comparing SPECT, camera-based PET, and dedicated PET. Radiology 1999; 210:823-828. LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Swensen SJ, Viggiano RW, Midthun DE, et al. Lung nodule enhancement at CT: multicenter study. Radiology 2000; 214:73-80. LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Li H, Boiselle PM, Shepard JO, Trotman-Dickenson B, McLoud TC. Diagnostic accuracy and safety of CT-guided percutaneous needle aspiration biopsy of the lung: comparison of small and large pulmonary nodules. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1996; 167:105-109. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 7 British Standards Institution. Precision of test methods, part I: guide for determination of repeatability and reproducibility for a standard test method, BS 5497, part I. London, England: BSI, 1979. Google Scholar
  • 8 Bland JM, Altman DG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1986; 1:307-310. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Bland JM, Altman DG. Measuring agreement in method comparison studies. Stat Methods Med Res 1999; 8:135-160. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Rousson V, Gasser T, Seifert B. Assessing intrarater, interrater and test-retest reliability of continuous measurements. Stat Med 2002; 21:3431-3446. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Steele JD, Buell P. Asymptomatic solitary pulmonary nodules: host survival, tumor size, and growth rate. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 1973; 65:140-151. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Geddes DM. The natural history of lung cancer: a review based on rates of tumour growth. Br J Dis Chest 1979; 73:1-17. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Winer-Muram HT, Jennings SG, Tarver RD, et al. Volumetric growth rate of stage I lung cancer prior to treatment: serial CT scanning. Radiology 2002; 223:798-805. LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Wormanns D, Diederich S, Lenstchig MG, Winter F, Heindel W. Spiral CT of pulmonary nodules: interobserver variation in assessment of lesion size. Eur Radiol 2000; 10:710-713. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Halligan S. Reproducibility, repeatability, correlation and measurement error. Br J Radiol 2002; 75:193-194; discussion, 194–195. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Staron RB, Ford E. Computed tomographic volumetric calculation reproducibility. Invest Radiol 1986; 21:272-274. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Yankelevitz DF, Reeves AP, Kostis WJ, Zhao B, Henschke CI. Small pulmonary nodules: volumetrically determined growth rates based on CT evaluation. Radiology 2000; 217:251-256. LinkGoogle Scholar

Article History

Published in print: May 2004