Pulmonary Nodules: 3D Volumetric Measurement with Multidetector CT—Effect of Intravenous Contrast Medium

Purpose: To retrospectively evaluate the effect of contrast medium on the three-dimensional volumetric measurement of pulmonary nodules.

Materials and Methods: The study was approved by the local institutional review committee, with waiver of informed consent. Sixty pulmonary nodules in 60 patients (17 women, 43 men; age range, 29–82 years) were imaged before and after administration of contrast medium with a 64-channel multidetector computed tomographic (CT) scanner; reconstructed images with a section thickness of 0.625 mm were obtained by using a bone algorithm and a standard algorithm. Volumetric measurements of pulmonary nodules were performed by using commercially available software, and the postcontrast volume ratio was calculated by dividing the postcontrast volume by the precontrast volume. Precontrast and postcontrast volumes were then analyzed by using a Wilcoxon signed rank test.

Results: The median measured volumes of pulmonary nodules were 817 mm3 (precontrast imaging, bone algorithm), 887 mm3 (postcontrast imaging, bone algorithm), 812 mm3 (precontrast imaging, standard algorithm), and 855 mm3 (postcontrast imaging, standard algorithm). The measured volumes obtained with the bone algorithm were significantly larger than those obtained with the standard algorithm, both before and after administration of contrast medium (P < .01); with both the standard algorithm and the bone algorithm, the measured postcontrast volumes were significantly larger than the precontrast volumes (P < .01). The postcontrast volume ratio was more than 1.0 in 45 cases (75%) when the bone algorithm was used and in 53 cases (88%) when the standard algorithm was used. The mean postcontrast volume ratio was 1.054 with the bone algorithm and 1.065 with the standard algorithm.

Conclusion: The measured volume of pulmonary nodules obtained by using three-dimensional volumetric software increased after administration of contrast medium. Moreover, the measured volume of pulmonary nodules that was obtained with the bone algorithm was larger than that obtained with the standard algorithm, regardless of whether contrast medium was used.

© RSNA, 2007


  • 1 Zwirewich CV, Vedal S, Miller RR, Muller NL. Solitary pulmonary nodule: high-resolution CT and radiologic-pathologic correlation. Radiology 1991; 179: 469–476. LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Seemann MD, Staebler A, Beinert T, et al. Usefulness of morphological characteristics for the differentiation of benign from malignant solitary pulmonary lesions using HRCT. Eur Radiol 1999;9:409–417. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Murakami T, Yasuhara Y, Yoshioka S, Uemura M, Mochizuki T, Ikezoe J. Pulmonary lesions detected in population-based CT screening for lung cancer: reliable findings of benign lesions. Radiat Med 2004;22:287–295. MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Jeong YJ, Lee KS, Jeong SY, et al. Solitary pulmonary nodule: characterization with combined wash-in and washout features at dynamic multi-detector row CT. Radiology 2005;237:675–683. 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 Zhang M, Kono M. Solitary pulmonary nodules: evaluation of blood flow patterns with dynamic CT. Radiology 1997;205:471–478. LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Yankelevitz DF, Henschke CI. Does 2-year stability imply that pulmonary nodules are benign? AJR Am J Roentgenol 1997;168:325–328. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 8 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
  • 9 Revel MP, Lefort C, Bissery A, et al. Pulmonary nodules: preliminary experience with three-dimensional evaluation. Radiology 2004;231:459–466. LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Wormanns D, Kohl G, Klotz E, et al. Volumetric measurements of pulmonary nodules at multi-row detector CT: in vivo reproducibility. Eur Radiol 2004;14:86–92. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Yankelevitz DF, Gupta R, Zhao B, Henschke CI. Small pulmonary nodules: evaluation with repeat CT—preliminary experience. Radiology 1999;212:561–566. LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 12 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
  • 13 Goo JM, Tongdee T, Tongdee R, Yeo K, Hildebolt CF, Bae KT. Volumetric measurement of synthetic lung nodules with multi-detector row CT: effect of various image reconstruction parameters and segmentation thresholds on measurement accuracy. Radiology 2005;235:850–856. LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Ko JP, Rusinek H, Jacobs EL, et al. Small pulmonary nodules: volume measurement at chest CT—phantom study. Radiology 2003;228:864–870. LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Webb WR. Radiologic evaluation of the solitary pulmonary nodule. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1990;154:701–708. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Swensen SJ, Morin RL, Aughenbaugh GL, Leimer DW. CT reconstruction algorithm selection in the evaluation of solitary pulmonary nodules. J Comput Assist Tomogr 1995;19:932–935. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Wormanns D, Diederich S. Characterization of small pulmonary nodules by CT. Eur Radiol 2004;14:1380–1391. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Bland JM, Altman DG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1986;1:307–310. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Ko JP, Marcus R, Bomsztyk E, et al. Effect of blood vessels on measurement of nodule volume in a chest phantom. Radiology 2006;239:79–85. LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Goodman LR, Gulsun M, Washington L, Nagy PG, Piacsek K. Inherent variability of CT lung nodule measurements in vivo using semiautomated volumetric measurements. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2006;186:989–994. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar

Article History

Published in print: 2007