Clinical T category for lung cancer staging: A pragmatic approach for real-world practice.
Computed x-ray tomography
lung adenocarcinoma (ADC)
neoplasm staging
observer variation
Journal
Thoracic cancer
ISSN: 1759-7714
Titre abrégé: Thorac Cancer
Pays: Singapore
ID NLM: 101531441
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
12 2020
12 2020
Historique:
received:
27
08
2020
revised:
27
09
2020
accepted:
28
09
2020
pubmed:
20
10
2020
medline:
20
11
2021
entrez:
19
10
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
To determine which components should be measured and which window settings are appropriate for computerized tomography (CT) size measurements of lung adenocarcinoma (ADC) and to explore interobserver agreement and accuracy according to the eighth edition of TNM staging. A total of 165 patients with surgically resected lung ADC earlier than stage 3A were included in this study. One radiologist and two pulmonologists independently measured the total and solid sizes of components of tumors on different window settings and assessed solidity. CT measurements were compared with pathologic size measurements. In categorizing solidity, 25% of the cases showed discordant results among observers. Measuring the total size of a lung adenocarcinoma predicted pathologic invasive components to a degree similar to measuring the solid component. Lung windows were more accurate (intraclass correlation [ICC] = 0.65-0.81) than mediastinal windows (ICC = 0.20-0.72) at predicting pathologic invasive components, especially in a part-solid nodule. Interobserver agreements for measurement of solid components were good with little significant difference (lung windows, ICC = 0.89; mediastinal windows, ICC = 0.91). A high level of interobserver agreement was seen between the radiologist and pulmonologists and between residents (from the division of pulmonology and critical care) versus a fellow (from the division of pulmonology and critical care) on different windows. A considerable percentage (25%) of discrepancies was encountered in categorizing the solidity of lesions, which may decrease the accuracy of measurements. Lung window settings may be superior to mediastinal windows for measuring lung ADCs, with comparable interobserver agreement and moderate accuracy for predicting pathologic invasive components. SIGNIFICANT FINDINGS OF THE STUDY: Lung window settings are better for evaluating part-solid lung adenocarcinoma (ADC), with comparable interobserver agreement and moderate accuracy for predicting pathologic invasive components. The considerable percentage (25%) of discrepancies in categorizing solidity of the lesions may also have decreased the accuracy of measurements. For accurate measurement and categorization of lung ADC, robust quantitative analysis is needed rather than a simple visual assessment.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
To determine which components should be measured and which window settings are appropriate for computerized tomography (CT) size measurements of lung adenocarcinoma (ADC) and to explore interobserver agreement and accuracy according to the eighth edition of TNM staging.
METHODS
A total of 165 patients with surgically resected lung ADC earlier than stage 3A were included in this study. One radiologist and two pulmonologists independently measured the total and solid sizes of components of tumors on different window settings and assessed solidity. CT measurements were compared with pathologic size measurements.
RESULTS
In categorizing solidity, 25% of the cases showed discordant results among observers. Measuring the total size of a lung adenocarcinoma predicted pathologic invasive components to a degree similar to measuring the solid component. Lung windows were more accurate (intraclass correlation [ICC] = 0.65-0.81) than mediastinal windows (ICC = 0.20-0.72) at predicting pathologic invasive components, especially in a part-solid nodule. Interobserver agreements for measurement of solid components were good with little significant difference (lung windows, ICC = 0.89; mediastinal windows, ICC = 0.91). A high level of interobserver agreement was seen between the radiologist and pulmonologists and between residents (from the division of pulmonology and critical care) versus a fellow (from the division of pulmonology and critical care) on different windows.
CONCLUSIONS
A considerable percentage (25%) of discrepancies was encountered in categorizing the solidity of lesions, which may decrease the accuracy of measurements. Lung window settings may be superior to mediastinal windows for measuring lung ADCs, with comparable interobserver agreement and moderate accuracy for predicting pathologic invasive components.
KEY POINTS
SIGNIFICANT FINDINGS OF THE STUDY: Lung window settings are better for evaluating part-solid lung adenocarcinoma (ADC), with comparable interobserver agreement and moderate accuracy for predicting pathologic invasive components. The considerable percentage (25%) of discrepancies in categorizing solidity of the lesions may also have decreased the accuracy of measurements.
WHAT THIS STUDY ADDS
For accurate measurement and categorization of lung ADC, robust quantitative analysis is needed rather than a simple visual assessment.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33075213
doi: 10.1111/1759-7714.13701
pmc: PMC7705618
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
3555-3565Subventions
Organisme : Korea government (Ministry of Science, ICT, and Future Planning)
ID : NRF-2020R1F1A1068226
Informations de copyright
© 2020 The Authors. Thoracic Cancer published by China Lung Oncology Group and John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd.
Références
J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2012 Mar;143(3):607-12
pubmed: 22104678
Eur J Radiol. 2018 Jan;98:130-135
pubmed: 29279151
Ann Thorac Surg. 2019 May;107(5):1523-1531
pubmed: 30576635
J Thorac Oncol. 2016 Aug;11(8):1204-1223
pubmed: 27107787
Radiology. 2016 Mar;278(3):888-96
pubmed: 26458208
Eur Radiol. 2015 Aug;25(8):2318-25
pubmed: 25680719
Clin Lung Cancer. 2018 May;19(3):e303-e312
pubmed: 29307591
Eur Radiol. 2017 Apr;27(4):1369-1376
pubmed: 27456963
J Thorac Oncol. 2015 Dec;10(12):1785-94
pubmed: 26473646
Radiology. 2008 Mar;246(3):697-722
pubmed: 18195376
J Thorac Dis. 2017 Sep;9(9):2862-2867
pubmed: 29221257
Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2019 Jun;67(4):321-328
pubmed: 29359309
Lung Cancer. 2009 Dec;66(3):379-85
pubmed: 19299033
Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2013 May;43(5):915-8
pubmed: 23024235
Phys Med Biol. 2019 Jul 05;64(13):135015
pubmed: 31167172
Cancer Imaging. 2010 Jul 06;10:137-43
pubmed: 20605762
J Thorac Oncol. 2014 Jan;9(1):74-82
pubmed: 24346095
Eur Radiol. 2015 Feb;25(2):558-67
pubmed: 25274618
Acta Radiol. 2015 Oct;56(10):1180-6
pubmed: 25293951
J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2013 Sep;146(3):580-5
pubmed: 23778085
J Thorac Oncol. 2011 Feb;6(2):244-85
pubmed: 21252716
Eur Radiol. 2016 Jan;26(1):43-54
pubmed: 25981222
Radiology. 2015 Dec;277(3):863-71
pubmed: 26020438
J Thorac Oncol. 2018 Dec;13(12):1864-1872
pubmed: 30292849
Chest. 2007 Sep;132(3):984-90
pubmed: 17573486
Radiology. 2013 Jan;266(1):304-17
pubmed: 23070270