Nodule Classification on Low-Dose Unenhanced CT and Standard-Dose Enhanced CT: Inter-Protocol Agreement and Analysis of Interchangeability

Abstract

ObjectiveTo measure inter-protocol agreement and analyze interchangeability on nodule classification between low-dose unenhanced CT and standard-dose enhanced CT.Materials and MethodsFrom nodule libraries containing both low-dose unenhanced and standard-dose enhanced CT, 80 solid and 80 subsolid (40 part-solid, 40 non-solid) nodules of 135 patients were selected. Five thoracic radiologists categorized each nodule into solid, part-solid or non-solid. Inter-protocol agreement between low-dose unenhanced and standard-dose enhanced images was measured by pooling κ values for classification into two (solid, subsolid) and three (solid, part-solid, non-solid) categories. Interchangeability between low-dose unenhanced and standard-dose enhanced CT for the classification into two categories was assessed using a pre-defined equivalence limit of 8 percent.ResultsInter-protocol agreement for the classification into two categories {κ, 0.96 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.94–0.98)} and that into three categories (κ, 0.88 [95% CI, 0.85–0.92]) was considerably high. The probability of agreement between readers with standard-dose enhanced CT was 95.6% (95% CI, 94.5–96.6%), and that between low-dose unenhanced and standard–dose enhanced CT was 95.4% (95% CI, 94.7–96.0%). The difference between the two proportions was 0.25% (95% CI, −0.85–1.5%), wherein the upper bound CI was markedly below 8 percent.ConclusionInter-protocol agreement for nodule classification was considerably high. Low-dose unenhanced CT can be used interchangeably with standard-dose enhanced CT for nodule classification.

Validation of the Eighth Edition Clinical T Categorization System for Clinical Stage IA, Resected Lung Adenocarcinomas: Prognostic Implications of the Ground-Glass Opacity Component

“…However, recent studies have reported that nodule classification and solid portion measurement are not substantially affected by CT protocols. 22,23 In this context, a large prospective study with uniform CT protocols and reproducible measurement tools (e.g., deep learning-based segmentation and quantification) is warranted. Fourth, the nodule type was primarily obtained from radiologic reports.…”

Improved repeatability of subsolid nodule measurement in low-dose lung screening with monoenergetic images: a phantom study

“…Recent studies showed that the observer variability for subsolid nodule classification is considerable (23,24). Although another recent study showed that nodule classification exhibits interchangeability between low-dose and standard-dose chest CTs (25), further investigation is needed regarding the variability of subsolid nodule classification in monoenergetic images with lower radiation dose, as used in our study.…”

Retrospective Analysis of Subsolid Nodules’ Frequency Using Chest Computed Tomography Detection in an Outpatient Population

“…Despite the heterogeneity of CT scan indications and acquisition protocols (both contrast and non-contrast scans were included) being considered as other methodological limitations, we can argue that all these circumstances are consistent with the routine practice of outpatient CT scan procedures. Interestingly, to the CT reading, Kyung Hee Lee and colleagues [ 19 ] found high agreement in nodule classification (subsolid and solid) between five thoracic radiologists for low-dose unenhanced CT and standard-dose enhanced CT.…”