Volumetric Analysis: Effect on Diagnosis and Management of Indeterminate Solid Pulmonary Nodules in Routine Clinical Practice

Abstract

Objective To evaluate the effect of volumetric analysis on the diagnosis and management of indeterminate solid pulmonary nodules in routine clinical practice. Methods This was a retrospective study with 107 computed tomography (CT) cases of solid pulmonary nodules (range, 6–15 mm), 57 pathology-proven malignancies (lung cancer, n = 34; metastasis, n = 23), and 50 benign nodules. Nodules were evaluated on a total of 309 CT scans (average number of CTs/nodule, 2.9 [range, 2–7]). CT scans were from multiple institutions with variable technique. Nine radiologists (attendings, n = 3; fellows, n = 3; residents, n = 3) were asked their level of suspicion for malignancy (low/moderate or high) and management recommendation (no follow-up, CT follow-up, or care escalation) for baseline and follow-up studies first without and then with volumetric analysis data. Effect of volumetry on diagnosis and management was assessed by generalized linear and logistic regression models. Results Volumetric analysis improved sensitivity (P = 0.009) and allowed earlier recognition (P < 0.05) of malignant nodules. Attending radiologists showed higher sensitivity in recognition of malignant nodules (P = 0.03) and recommendation of care escalation (P < 0.001) compared with trainees. Volumetric analysis altered management of high suspicion nodules only in the fellow group (P = 0.008). κ Statistics for suspicion for malignancy and recommended management were fair to substantial (0.38–0.66) and fair to moderate (0.33–0.50). Volumetric analysis improved interobserver variability for identification of nodule malignancy from 0.52 to 0.66 (P = 0.004) only on the second follow-up study. Conclusions Volumetric analysis of indeterminate solid pulmonary nodules in routine clinical practice can result in improved sensitivity and earlier identification of malignant nodules. The effect of volumetric analysis on management recommendations is variable and influenced by reader experience.