Pulmonary Nodules Detected at Lung Cancer Screening: Interobserver Variability of Semiautomated Volume Measurements

Purpose: To retrospectively determine interobserver variability of semiautomated volume measurements of pulmonary nodules and the potential reasons for variability.

Materials and Methods: The Dutch-Belgian lung cancer screening trial (NELSON) is a lung cancer screening study that includes men between the ages of 50 and 75 years who are current or former heavy smokers. The NELSON project was approved by the Dutch Ministry of Health and the ethics committee of each participating hospital. Informed consent was obtained from all participants. For this study, the authors evaluated 1200 consecutive low-dose computed tomographic (CT) scans of the chest obtained during the NELSON project and identified subjects who had at least one 50–500-mm3 nodule. One local and one central observer independently evaluated the scans and measured the volume of any detected nodule by using semiautomated software. Noncalcified solid nodules with volumes of 15–500 mm3 were included in this study if they were fully surrounded by air (intraparenchymal) and were detected by both observers. The mean volume and the difference between both measurements were calculated for all nodules. Intermeasurement agreement was assessed with the Spearman correlation coefficient. Potential reasons for discrepancies were assessed.

Results: There were 232 men (mean age, 60 years; age range, 52–73 years) with 430 eligible nodules (mean volume, 77.8 mm3; range, 15.3–499.5 mm3). Interobserver correlation was high (r = 0.99). No difference in volume was seen for 383 nodules (89.1%). Discrepant results were obtained for 47 nodules (10.9%); in 16 cases (3.7%), the discrepancy was larger than 10%. The most frequent cause of variability was incomplete segmentation due to an irregular shape or irregular margins.

Conclusion: In a minority (approximately 11%) of small solid intraparenchymal nodules, semiautomated measurements are not completely reproducible and, thus, may cause errors in the assessment of nodule growth. For small or irregularly shaped nodules, an observer should check the segmentation shown by the program.

© RSNA, 2006


  • 1 Diederich S, Wormanns D, Heindel W. Lung cancer screening with low-dose CT. Eur J Radiol 2003; 45(1): 2–7. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Henschke CI, McCauley DI, Yankelevitz DF, et al. Early Lung Cancer Action Project: overall design and findings from baseline screening. Lancet 1999;354(9173):99–105. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Swensen SJ, Jett JR, Hartman TE, et al. Lung cancer screening with CT: Mayo Clinic experience. Radiology 2003;226(3):756–761. LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Wormanns D, Kohl G, Klotz E, et al. Volumetric measurements of pulmonary nodules at multi-row detector CT: in vivo reproducibility. Eur Radiol 2004;14(1):86–92. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Diederich S, Thomas M, Semik M, et al. Screening for early lung cancer with low-dose spiral computed tomography: results of annual follow-up examinations in asymptomatic smokers. Eur Radiol 2004;14(4):691–702. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Henschke CI, Naidich DP, Yankelevitz DF, et al. Early lung cancer action project: initial findings on repeat screenings. Cancer 2001;92(1):153–159. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Takashima S, Sone S, Li F, Maruyama Y, Hasegawa M, Kadoya M. Indeterminate solitary pulmonary nodules revealed at population-based CT screening of the lung: using first follow-up diagnostic CT to differentiate benign and malignant lesions. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2003;180(5):1255–1263. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Usuda K, Saito Y, Sagawa M, et al. Tumor doubling time and prognostic assessment of patients with primary lung cancer. Cancer 1994;74(8):2239–2244. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Wormanns D, Diederich S. Characterization of small pulmonary nodules by CT. Eur Radiol 2004;14(8):1380–1391. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Revel MP, Lefort C, Bissery A, et al. Pulmonary nodules: preliminary experience with three-dimensional evaluation. Radiology 2004;231(2):459–466. LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Goo JM, Lee JW, Lee HJ, Kim S, Kim JH, Im JG. Automated lung nodule detection at low-dose CT: preliminary experience. Korean J Radiol 2003;4(4):211–216. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Hasegawa M, Sone S, Takashima S, et al. Growth rate of small lung cancers detected on mass CT screening. Br J Radiol 2000;73(876):1252–1259. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Reeves AP, Kostis WJ. Computer-aided diagnosis for lung cancer. Radiol Clin North Am 2000;38(3):497–509. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Wormanns D, Fiebich M, Saidi M, Diederich S, Heindel W. Automatic detection of pulmonary nodules at spiral CT: clinical application of a computer-aided diagnosis system. Eur Radiol 2002;12(5):1052–1057. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Zhao B, Gamsu G, Ginsberg MS, Jiang L, Schwartz LH. Automatic detection of small lung nodules on CT utilizing a local density maximum algorithm. J Appl Clin Med Phys 2003;4(3):248–260. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 16 van Klaveren RJ, Habbema JD, de Koning HJ, Oudkerk M, Damhuis RA, Hoogsteden HC. Screening for lung cancer in the Netherlands: the role of spiral CT scan [in Dutch]. Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd 2001;145(11):521–526. MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Bland JM, Altman DG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1986;1(8476):307–310. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 18 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
  • 19 MacMahon H, Austin JH, Gamsu G, et al. Guidelines for management of small pulmonary nodules detected on CT scans: a statement from the Fleischner Society. Radiology 2005;237(2):395–400. LinkGoogle Scholar

Article History

Published in print: 2006