Effect of Nodule Characteristics on Variability of Semiautomated Volume Measurements in Pulmonary Nodules Detected in a Lung Cancer Screening Program

Purpose: To retrospectively assess volume measurement variability in solid pulmonary nodules (volume, 15–500 mm3) detected at lung cancer screening and to quantify the independent effects of nodule morphology, size, and location.

Materials and Methods: This retrospective study was a substudy of the screening program that was approved by the Dutch Ministry of Health, and all participants provided written informed consent. Two independent readers used semiautomated software to measure the volume of pulmonary nodules detected in 6774 participants aged 50–75 years (5917 men). Nodules were classified according to their location (purely intraparenchymal, pleural based, juxtavascular, or fissure attached), morphology (smooth, polylobulated, spiculated, or irregular), and size (≤50 mm3 or >50 mm3). The level of agreement was expressed by using the absolute values of the relative volume differences (RVDs). Multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed, and odds ratios (ORs) were computed to quantify the independent effects of morphology, location, and size on RVD categories.

Results: Altogether, 4225 nodules in 2239 participants were included. Complete agreement in volume was obtained for 3646 (86%) of the nodules. Disagreement was small (absolute value of RVD < 5%) for 173 (4%) nodules, moderate (absolute value of RVD ≥ 5% but < 15%) for 232 (6%), and large (absolute value of RVD ≥ 15%) for 174 (4%). Multivariate analysis showed that the ORs of volume disagreement were 15.7, 3.1, and 1.9 for irregular, spiculated, and polylobulated nodules, respectively; 3.5, 2.6, and 2.1 for juxtavascular, pleural-based, and fissure-attached nodules, respectively; and 1.3 for large nodules compared with smooth, purely intraparenchymal, and small reference nodules.

Conclusion: Nodule morphology, location, and size influence volume measurement variability, particularly for juxtavascular and irregular nodules.

© RSNA, 2008


  • 1 Swensen SJ, Jett JR, Hartman TE, et al. Lung cancer screening with CT: Mayo Clinic experience. Radiology 2003; 226: 756–761.
  • 2 Swensen SJ, Jett JR, Hartman TE, et al. CT screening for lung cancer: 5-year prospective experience. Radiology 2005; 235: 259–265.
  • 3 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.
  • 4 Fischbach F, Knollmann F, Griesshaber V, Freund T, Akkol E, Felix R. Detection of pulmonary nodules by multislice computed tomography: improved detection rate with reduced slice thickness. Eur Radiol 2003; 13: 2378–2383.
  • 5 Diederich S, Wormanns D, Semik M, et al. Screening for early lung cancer with low-dose spiral CT: prevalence in 817 asymptomatic smokers. Radiology 2002; 222: 773–781.
  • 6 Coleman RE, Laymon CM, Turkington TG. FDG imaging of lung nodules: a phantom study comparing SPECT, camera-based PET, and dedicated PET. Radiology 1999; 210: 823–828.
  • 7 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.
  • 8 Swensen SJ, Viggiano RW, Midthun DE, et al. Lung nodule enhancement at CT: multicenter study. Radiology 2000; 214: 73–80.
  • 9 Lillington GA. Management of solitary pulmonary nodules. Dis Mon 1991; 37: 271–318.
  • 10 Revel MP, Merlin A, Peyrard S, et al. Software volumetric evaluation of doubling times for differentiating benign versus malignant pulmonary nodules. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2006; 187: 135–142.
  • 11 Aoki T, Nakata H, Watanabe H, et al. Evolution of peripheral lung adenocarcinomas: CT findings correlated with histology and tumor doubling time. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2000; 174: 763–768.
  • 12 Yankelevitz DF, Reeves AP, Kostis WJ, Zhao BS, Henschke CI. Small pulmonary nodules: volumetrically determined growth rates based on CT evaluation. Radiology 2000; 217: 251–256.
  • 13 Yankelevitz DF, Gupta R, Zhao B, Henschke CI. Small pulmonary nodules: evaluation with repeat CT—preliminary experience. Radiology 1999; 212: 561–566.
  • 14 Hasegawa M, Sone S, Takashima S, et al. Growth rate of small lung cancers detected on mass CT screening. Br J Radiol 2000; 73: 1252–1259.
  • 15 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.
  • 16 Erasmus JJ, Gladish GW, Broemeling L, et al. Interobserver and intraobserver variability in measurement of non-small-cell carcinoma lung lesions: implications for assessment of tumor response. J Clin Oncol 2003; 21: 2574–2582.
  • 17 Jennings SG, Winer-Muram HT, Tarver RD, Farber MO. Lung tumor growth: assessment with CT—comparison of diameter and cross-sectional area with volume measurements. Radiology 2004; 231: 866–871.
  • 18 Revel MP, Lefort C, Bissery A, et al. Pulmonary nodules: preliminary experience with three-dimensional evaluation. Radiology 2004; 231: 459–466.
  • 19 Ko JP, Rusinek H, Jacobs EL, et al. Small pulmonary nodules: volume measurement at chest CT—phantom study. Radiology 2003; 228: 864–870.
  • 20 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.
  • 21 Goodman LR, Gulsun M, Washington L, Nagy PG, Piacsek KL. Inherent variability of CT lung nodule measurements in vivo using semiautomated volumetric measurements. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2006; 186: 989–994.
  • 22 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.
  • 23 Gietema HA, Wang Y, Xu D, et al. Pulmonary nodules detected at lung cancer screening: interobserver variability of semiautomated volume measurements. Radiology 2006; 241: 251–257.
  • 24 Petrou M, Quint LE, Nan B, Baker LH. Pulmonary nodule volumetric measurement variability as a function of CT slice thickness and nodule morphology. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2007; 188: 306–312.
  • 25 Xu DM, Gietema H, de Koning H, et al. Nodule management protocol of the NELSON randomised lung cancer screening trial. Lung Cancer 2006; 54: 177–184.
  • 26 Erasmus JJ, Connolly JE, McAdams HP, Roggli VL. Solitary pulmonary nodules. I. Morphologic evaluation for differentiation of benign and malignant lesions. RadioGraphics 2000; 20: 43–58.
  • 27 Takashima S, Maruyama Y, Hasegawa M, et al. CT findings and progression of small peripheral lung neoplasms having a replacement growth pattern. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2003; 180: 817–826.
  • 28 Takashima S, Sone S, Li F, et al. Small solitary pulmonary nodules (< or =1 cm) detected at population-based CT screening for lung cancer: reliable high-resolution CT features of 513 benign lesions. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2003; 180: 955–964.
  • 29 Bland JM, Altman DG. Measuring agreement in method comparison studies. Stat Methods Med Res 1999; 8: 135–160.
  • 30 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: 446–452.

Article History

Published in print: 2008