Influence of lung nodule margin on volume- and diameter-based reader variability in CT lung cancer screening

To evaluate the influence of nodule margin on inter- and intrareader variability in manual diameter measurements and semi-automatic volume measurements of solid nodules detected in low-dose CT lung cancer screening.

25 nodules of each morphological category (smooth, lobulated, spiculated and irregular) were randomly selected from 93 participants of the Dutch-Belgian Randomized Lung Cancer Screening Trial (NELSON). Semi-automatic volume measurements were performed using Syngo LungCARE® software (Version Somaris/5 VB10A-W, Siemens, Forchheim, Germany). Three radiologists independently measured mean diameters manually. Impact of nodule margin on interreader variability was evaluated based on systematic error and 95% limits of agreement. Interreader variability was compared with the nodule growth cut-off as used in Lung CT Screening Reporting and Data System (LungRADS; +1.5-mm diameter) and the Dutch-Belgian Randomized Lung Cancer Screening Trial(acronym: NELSON) /British Thoracic Society (+25% volume).

For manual diameter measurements, a significant systematic error (up to 1.2 mm) between readers was found in all morphological categories. For semi-automatic volume measurements, no statistically significant systematic error was found. The interreader variability in mean diameter measurements exceeded the 1.5-mm cut-off for nodule growth for all morphological categories [smooth: ±1.9 mm (+27%), lobulated: ±2.0 mm (+33%), spiculated: ±3.5 mm (+133%), irregular: ±4.5 mm (+200%)]. The 25% vol growth cut-off was exceeded slightly for spiculated [28% (+12%)] and irregular [27% (+8%)] nodules.

Lung nodule sizing based on manual diameter measurement is affected by nodule margin. Interreader variability increases especially for nodules with spiculated and irregular margins, and causes substantial misclassification of nodule growth. This effect is almost neglectable for semi-automated volume measurements. Semi-automatic volume measurements are superior for both size and growth determination of pulmonary nodules.

Nodule assessment based on manual diameter measurements is susceptible to nodule margin. This effect is almost neglectable for semi-automated volume measurements. The larger interreader variability for manual diameter measurement results in inaccurate lung nodule growth detection and size classification.