HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Abstract Figures Only Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Henschke, C. I. Articles by Miettinen, O. S. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Henschke, C. I. Articles by Miettinen, O. S. Social Bookmarking                      What's this?

CT Screening for Lung Cancer

Frequency and Significance of Part-Solid and Nonsolid Nodules

¹ Department of Radiology, New York Presbyterian Hospital—Weill Cornell Medical Center, 525 E. 68th St., New York, NY 10021.
² Department of Radiology, New York University Medical Center, 550 First Ave., New York, NY 10016.
³ Department of Medicine, New York Presbyterian Hopital—Weill Cornell Medical Center, New York, NY 10021.

Received June 19, 2001; accepted after revision November 20, 2001.

 
Address correspondence to C. I. Henschke.

Abstract

Top Abstract Introduction Materials and Methods Results Discussion References

 
OBJECTIVE. In the Early Lung Cancer Action Project (ELCAP), we found not only solid but also part-solid and nonsolid nodules in patients at both baseline and repeat CT screening for lung cancer. We report the frequency and significance of part-solid and nonsolid nodules in comparison with solid nodules.

MATERIALS AND METHODS. We reviewed all instances of a positive finding in patients at baseline (from one to six noncalcified nodules) and annual repeat screenings (from one to six newly detected noncalcified nodules with interim growth) to classify each of the nodules as solid, part-solid, or nonsolid. We defined a solid nodule as a nodule that completely obscures the entire lung parenchyma within it. Part-solid nodules are those having sections that are solid in this sense, and nonsolid nodules are those with no solid parts. Chi-square statistics were used to test for differences in the malignancy rates.

RESULTS. Among the 233 instances of positive results at baseline screening, 44 (19%) involved a part-solid or nonsolid largest nodule (16 part-solid and 28 nonsolid). Among these 44 cases of positive findings, malignancy was diagnosed in 15 (34%) as opposed to a 7% malignancy rate for solid nodules (p = 0.000001). The malignancy rate for part-solid nodules was 63% (10/16), and the rate for nonsolid nodules was 18% (5/28). Even after standardizing for nodule size, the malignancy rate was significantly higher for part-solid nodules than for either solid ones (p = 0.004) or nonsolid ones (p = 0.03). The malignancy type in the part-solid or nonsolid nodules was predominantly bronchioloalveolar carcinoma or adenocarcinoma with bronchioloalveolar features, contrasting with other subtypes of adenocarcinoma found in the solid nodules (p = 0.0001). At annual repeat screenings, only 30 instances of positive test results have been obtained; seven of these involved part-solid or nonsolid nodules.

CONCLUSION. In CT screening for lung cancer, the detected nodule commonly is either only part-solid or nonsolid, but such a nodule is more likely to be malignant than a solid one, even when nodule size is taken into account.

Introduction

Top Abstract Introduction Materials and Methods Results Discussion References

 
We initiated our Early Lung Cancer Action Project (ELCAP) in 1992 to assess the usefulness of a regimen of CT screening for lung cancer, and we have reported the frequency of a positive result of the screening test and of the diagnosis of malignancy at both baseline and annual repeat screenings [1, 2]. A positive finding on the screening test was defined as detection of between one and six noncalcified nodules at baseline screening; and at repeat screening, detection of between one and six new noncalcified nodules showing growth since the previous screening.

All focal nonlinear densities were counted as representing nodules, and we classified a nodule as noncalcified if it failed to meet our criteria for a benign noncalcified nodule [1, 2]. Among these noncalcified nodules, we found solid nodules, which we defined as nodules that completely obscure the lung parenchyma within them. We also found nodules that did not completely obscure the entire lung parenchyma within them, commonly called "ground-glass opacities" [3,4,5,6,7,8]. We wanted to use the data from a CT screening program to address the frequency of occurrence of these different types of nodule and the frequency with which they represent malignancy.

We also wanted to introduce a different terminology for ground-glass opacities because we believe that this term is not appropriate in the context of CT screening for lung cancer. The term "ground-glass" was introduced to describe—and is still applied to—not only focal abnormalities but diffuse ones as well, so that, for our purposes, the adjective "focal" needs to be added. We also prefer to use the anatomic term "nodule" rather than "opacity" because the former is in line with other anatomic terms generally used in chest radiology, such as "bronchi" and "blood vessels." Accordingly, in this article, we distinguish between solid and subsolid nodules. The former was defined as a nodule that completely obscures the entire lung parenchyma within it whereas the latter does not. A subsolid nodule can be further classified as either part-solid (in the case of a nodule with patches of parenchyma that are completely obscured) or nonsolid (in the case of a nodule with no such areas).

Materials and Methods

Top Abstract Introduction Materials and Methods Results Discussion References

 
This study was based on the ELCAP experience with persons undergoing baseline and annual repeat CT screening for lung cancer [1, 2]. Among the 233 instances of positive findings on baseline CT scans, 159 of the findings involved only a single noncalcified nodule, 43 of the positive findings involved two noncalcified nodules, 16 positive findings involved three such nodules, seven positive findings involved four nodules, six positive findings involved five nodules, and two involved six nodules. Among the 30 instances of a positive finding on annual repeat CT scans, 28 involved a solitary nodule of the relevant type, one involved two nodules, and the remaining finding involved three nodules.

We reviewed all these instances of positive finding, classifying each nodule as to its type—solid, part-solid, or nonsolid—on the basis of the nodule's appearance on the high-resolution CT scans obtained after the identification of the nodule on low-dose CT. The high-resolution CT scans of the nodules were obtained with a targeted field of view (9.6 cm), 1-mm collimation with overlapping 0.5-mm reconstructions, and high-spatial-frequency algorithm. A nodule was classified as part-solid if it contained patches that completely obscured the lung parenchyma (Figs. 1 and 2) or had spiculations (Fig. 3). A nodule was classified as nonsolid if none of the lung parenchyma within it was totally obscured (Figs. 4 and 5). In making the distinction between a part-solid and a nonsolid nodule, we did not regard blood vessels as solid components despite their solid appearance (Fig. 5). Figure 6 shows a solid nodule for comparison.

View larger version (124K): [in this window] [in a new window] [as a PowerPoint slide]   Fig. 1. —High-resolution CT scan shows part-solid nodule with central cystic space in 72-year-old man. Final pathologic diagnosis was adenocarcinoma.

View larger version (122K): [in this window] [in a new window] [as a PowerPoint slide]   Fig. 2. —High-resolution CT scan shows part-solid nodule detected on baseline CT in 71-year-old woman. Solid components are centrally located and surrounded by nonsolid component. Air bronchograms are seen in solid component. Final pathologic diagnosis was adenocarcinoma.

View larger version (130K): [in this window] [in a new window] [as a PowerPoint slide]   Fig. 3. —High-resolution CT scan reveals part-solid nodule with spiculations and pleural tag that proved to be adenocarcinoma in 75-year-old woman.

View larger version (115K): [in this window] [in a new window] [as a PowerPoint slide]   Fig. 4. —High-resolution CT scan depicts nonsolid nodule that proved to be adenocarcinoma with bronchioloalveolar features in 76-year-old woman.

View larger version (100K): [in this window] [in a new window] [as a PowerPoint slide]   Fig. 5. —Magnification of high-resolution CT scan shows nonsolid nodule that has not yet been biopsied in 68-year-old man. No solid components other than blood vessels are seen. Blood vessels (top arrow), bronchus (middle arrow), and cyst or area of emphysema (bottom arrow) can be identified.

View larger version (106K): [in this window] [in a new window] [as a PowerPoint slide]   Fig. 6. —Magnification of high-resolution CT scan reveals solid nodule found to be adenocarcinoma in 62-year-old man.

Chi-square statistics with one degree of freedom were used for comparisons of the frequency of malignancy among the three types of nodule. The size-adjusted frequencies were obtained by deriving mutually standardized rates with the weighting proportional to comparative information.

Results

Top Abstract Introduction Materials and Methods Results Discussion References

 
Among the 233 positive findings on the baseline CT scans, 189 (81%) involved only solid nodules, 40 (17%) involved only part-solid or nonsolid nodules, and four (2%) involved a combination of both part-solid and nonsolid nodules.

The distribution of the positive findings by size of the (solitary or otherwise) largest nodule is shown in Table 1, grouped by nodule type. The median diameter of the largest nodule was 3 mm for the solid nodules, 10 mm for the part-solid nodules, and 7 mm for the nonsolid nodules. As this table indicates, part-solid nodules were less common than nonsolid ones. The largest nodule was part-solid in 16 instances and nonsolid in 28 instances.

The prevalence of malignancy by the size and type of the largest nodule is shown in Table 2. The prevalence of malignancy increased markedly as the size of the largest nodule increased and was distinctly higher among the part-solid and nonsolid nodules combined (15/44, 34%) than among solid nodules (14/189, 7%; p = 0.000001). After adjustment for the differing size distributions, the prevalence still was somewhat higher for the part-solid and nonsolid nodules combined than for solid ones (p = 0.04). Among the mutually standardized rates for all three types of nodules, the malignancy rate for the part-solid nodules was significantly higher than the rates for either solid nodules (p = 0.004) or nonsolid ones (p = 0.03). When adjusting the malignancy rate of solid nodules to the distribution of the nonsolid ones, the results were identical.

Table 3 gives the distribution of malignancy type by solid and subsolid nodule type. Among the malignancies associated with subsolid nodules, we found a preponderance of bronchioloalveolar carcinoma or adenocarcinoma with bronchioloalveolar features, which are quite different entities from the malignancies associated with the solid nodules (p = 0.0001).

Among the 30 positive findings on annual repeat CT scans were no instances of part-solid nodules, seven findings of nonsolid nodules only, and 23 findings of solid ones only. The prevalence of diagnosed malignancy in these cases was seven of 23 solid nodules and one of seven nonsolid nodules. These numbers are too small for further scrutiny.

Discussion

Top Abstract Introduction Materials and Methods Results Discussion References

 
Nodules that are not considered solid because they do not completely obscure the entire parenchyma we called subsolid nodules. These nodules can be further subdivided into part-solid and nonsolid nodules. They are a topic peculiar to CT of the chest, and their importance in CT-based screening for lung cancer has not been fully appreciated. Nevertheless, every effort was made in the ELCAP to identify them, and they indeed were fully included in the classification of the initial test finding as positive or negative. The present results indicate that the frequency of these subsolid nodules (in relation to that of solid nodules) in CT-based screening for lung cancer is appreciable (detected on approximately 20% of baseline screenings), a topic we believe has not been discussed in previous literature. With the finer CT collimation made possible by advancements in technology, the relative frequency of detection of the part-solid and, especially, the nonsolid nodule will be even higher.

A more notable finding in our study, however, has to do with the significance of these nodules: overall, the frequency of malignancy in them was much higher than in solid nodules, in the part-solid nodules in particular. To the best of our knowledge, no previous literature exists on malignancy rates in subsolid nodules. In addition, the distribution by malignancy type was strikingly different in the subsolid nodules as compared with the solid ones. The malignancies in subsolid nodules were typically bronchioloalveolar carcinomas or adenocarcinomas with bronchioloalveolar features, whereas in solid ones the malignancies were typically other subtypes of adenocarcinoma. This comparison also has not been addressed in the literature.

Although there may be suspicion that bronchioloalveolar carcinoma represents overdiagnosis of lung cancer—that is, that it progresses so slowly as to be inconsequential—the natural history of three of our patients who were clinically diagnosed as being in stage IA at the time of detection suggests otherwise. Two patients progressed to stage IV adenocarcinoma during the 4 years that elapsed before attempted surgical resection, whereas the third patient remained in stage IA for 2 years before undergoing resection. In the most notable report on the course of bronchioloalveolar carcinoma, Hill [9] noted that in all 46 patients with unresected clinically stage I bronchioloalveolar carcinomas, the disease progressed to a more advanced stage, typically within 2 years. Once the disease was beyond stage I, death typically occurred within 3 years. The progression was slow in only five of these 46 patients, but the disease in these patients, too, progressed to an advanced stage. Results of more recent studies have also suggested this progression on the basis of cytologic and histologic evidence and studies of monoclonality and molecular markers [10,11,12,13,14].

Therefore, because subsolid nodules are a topic of greater importance than previously presumed in the context of CT screening for lung cancer, these nodules need to be studied in greater detail. Work is needed on the quantification of the extent of the solid component and of the rates of growth of the solid and nonsolid components, and then on the significance of these determinations. The radiologic—pathologic correlation of these subsolid nodules and information on potential biomarkers need further elucidation. On the basis of our experience and that of others [3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14], we think that the solid component is caused by lack of aeration in the alveoli, perhaps because the alveoli are being compressed or are otherwise being inadequately oxygenated. To the extent that a nodule is not solid, it presumably owes its cloudy appearance to partially aerated alveoli or thickened alveolar walls. For further research, pooling of data is necessary to adequately determine the natural history of malignancies diagnosed in these subsolid nodules and in their more detailed subtypes.

References

Top Abstract Introduction Materials and Methods Results Discussion References

 

1. 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[Medline]
2. Henschke CI, Naidich DP, Yankelevitz DF, et al. Early Lung Cancer Action Project: preliminary findings on annual repeat screening. Cancer 2001;92:153 -159[Medline]
3. Miller RR. Bronchioloalveolar cell adenomas. Am J Surg Pathol 1990;14:904 -912[Medline]
4. Gaeta M, Barone M, Caruso R, Bartiromo G, Pandolfo I. CT-pathologic correlation in nodular bronchioloalveolar carcinoma. J Comput Assist Tomogr 1994;18:229 -232[Medline]
5. Kushihashi T, Munechika H, Ri K, Kubota H, et al. Bronchioloalveolar adenoma of the lung: CT-pathologic correlation. Radiology 1994;193:789 -793[Abstract/Free Full Text]
6. Kobayashi T, Satoh K, Sasaki M, et al. Bronchioloalveolar carcinoma with widespread groundglass shadow on CT in two cases. J Comput Assist Tomogr 1997;21:133 -135[Medline]
7. Koizumi N, Sakai K, Matsuzucki Y, et al. Natural history of cloudy zone of pulmonary adenocarcinoma on HRCT [in Japanese]. Nippon Igaku Hoshasen Gakkai Zasshi 1996;56:715 -719[Medline]
8. Wang JC, Sone S, Feng L, Yang ZG, et al. Rapidly growing small peripheral lung cancers detected by screening CT: correlation between radiological appearance and pathologic features. Br J Radiol 2000;73:930 -937[Abstract]
9. Hill C. Bronchioloalveolar carcinoma: a review. Radiology 1984;150:15 -20[Abstract/Free Full Text]
10. Noguchi M, Shimosato Y. The development and progression of the adenocarcinoma of the lung: adenocarcinoma of the lungs—its development and malignant progression. Lung Cancer 1993;9:99 -108
11. Noguchi M, Morikawa A, Kawasaki M, et al. Small adenocarcinoma of the lung: histologic characteristics and prognosis. Cancer 1995;75:2844 -2852[Medline]
12. Kitamura H, Kameda Y, Nakamura Y, et al. Proliferative potential and p53 overexpression in precursor and early stage lesions in bronchioloalveolar lung carcinoma. Am J Pathol 1995;146:876 -887[Abstract]
13. Kitamura H, Kameda Y, Nakamura N, et al. Atypical adenomatous hyperplasia and bronchioloalveolar lung carcinoma: analysis by morphometry and the expressions of p53 and carcinoembryonic antigen. Am J Surg Pathol 1996;20:553 -562[Medline]
14. Niho S, Yokose T, Suzuki K, et al. Monoclonality of atypical adenomatous hyperplasia of the lung. Am J Pathol 1999;154;249 -254[Abstract/Free Full Text]

CiteULike

Complore

Connotea

Del.icio.us

Digg

Reddit

Technorati

This article has been cited by other articles:

				C. M. Park, J. M. Goo, T. J. Kim, H. J. Lee, K. W. Lee, C. H. Lee, Y. T. Kim, K. G. Kim, H. Y. Lee, E.-A. Park, et al. Pulmonary Nodular Ground-Glass Opacities in Patients With Extrapulmonary Cancers: What is Their Clinical Significance and How Can We Determine Whether They Are Malignant or Benign Lesions? Chest, June 1, 2008; 133(6): 1402 - 1409. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				S. Oda, K. Awai, D. Liu, T. Nakaura, Y. Yanaga, H. Nomori, and Y. Yamashita Ground-Glass Opacities on Thin-Section Helical CT: Differentiation Between Bronchioloalveolar Carcinoma and Atypical Adenomatous Hyperplasia Am. J. Roentgenol., May 1, 2008; 190(5): 1363 - 1368. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				T. J. Kim, J.-H. Lee, C.-T. Lee, S. H. Jheon, S. W. Sung, J.-H. Chung, and K. W. Lee Diagnostic Accuracy of CT-Guided Core Biopsy of Ground-Glass Opacity Pulmonary Lesions Am. J. Roentgenol., January 1, 2008; 190(1): 234 - 239. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				C. I. Henschke and D. F. Yankelevitz CT Screening for Lung Cancer: Update 2007 Oncologist, January 1, 2008; 13(1): 65 - 78. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				H. Y. Kim, Y. M. Shim, K. S. Lee, J. Han, C. A Yi, and Y. K. Kim Persistent Pulmonary Nodular Ground-Glass Opacity at Thin-Section CT: Histopathologic Comparisons Radiology, October 1, 2007; 245(1): 267 - 275. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				G. Veronesi, M. Bellomi, U. Veronesi, G. Paganelli, P. Maisonneuve, P. Scanagatta, F. Leo, G. Pelosi, L. Travaini, C. Rampinelli, et al. Role of Positron Emission Tomography Scanning in the Management of Lung Nodules Detected at Baseline Computed Tomography Screening Ann. Thorac. Surg., September 1, 2007; 84(3): 959 - 966. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				M Bellomi, G Veronesi, C Rampinelli, S Ferretti, E De Fiori, and P Maisonneuve Evolution of lung nodules <=5 mm detected with low-dose CT in asymptomatic smokers Br. J. Radiol., September 1, 2007; 80(957): 708 - 712. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				M. M. Wahidi, J. A. Govert, R. K. Goudar, M. K. Gould, and D. C. McCrory Evidence for the Treatment of Patients With Pulmonary Nodules: When Is It Lung Cancer?: ACCP Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines (2nd Edition) Chest, September 1, 2007; 132(3_suppl): 94S - 107S. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				M. K. Gould, J. Fletcher, M. D. Iannettoni, W. R. Lynch, D. E. Midthun, D. P. Naidich, and D. E. Ost Evaluation of Patients With Pulmonary Nodules: When Is It Lung Cancer?: ACCP Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines (2nd Edition) Chest, September 1, 2007; 132(3_suppl): 108S - 130S. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				New York Early Lung Cancer Action Project Investig CT Screening for Lung Cancer: Diagnoses Resulting from the New York Early Lung Cancer Action Project Radiology, April 1, 2007; 243(1): 239 - 249. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				C. M. Park, J. M. Goo, H. J. Lee, C. H. Lee, E. J. Chun, and J.-G. Im Nodular Ground-Glass Opacity at Thin-Section CT: Histologic Correlation and Evaluation of Change at Follow-up RadioGraphics, March 1, 2007; 27(2): 391 - 408. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				A. Mujoomdar, J. H. M. Austin, R. Malhotra, C. A. Powell, G. D. N. Pearson, M. C. Shiau, and H. Raftopoulos Clinical Predictors of Metastatic Disease to the Brain from Non-Small Cell Lung Carcinoma: Primary Tumor Size, Cell Type, and Lymph Node Metastases Radiology, March 1, 2007; 242(3): 882 - 888. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. P. Ko, C. C. Roberts, W. G. Berger, and F. S. Chew Imaging Evaluation of the Solitary Pulmonary Nodule: Self-Assessment Module Am. J. Roentgenol., March 1, 2007; 188(3_Supplement): S1 - S4. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				Y. J. Jeong, C. A. Yi, and K. S. Lee Solitary Pulmonary Nodules: Detection, Characterization, and Guidance for Further Diagnostic Workup and Treatment Am. J. Roentgenol., January 1, 2007; 188(1): 57 - 68. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				The International Early Lung Cancer Action Program Survival of Patients with Stage I Lung Cancer Detected on CT Screening N. Engl. J. Med., October 26, 2006; 355(17): 1763 - 1771. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				C. Plathow, M. Schoebinger, C. Fink, H. Hof, J. Debus, H.-P. Meinzer, and H.-U. Kauczor Quantification of Lung Tumor Volume and Rotation at 3D Dynamic Parallel MR Imaging with View Sharing: Preliminary Results Radiology, August 1, 2006; 240(2): 537 - 545. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				H. Prosch, G. Strasser, E. Oschatz, E. Schober, B. Schneider, and G. H. Mostbeck Management of patients with small pulmonary nodules: a survey of radiologists, pulmonologists, and thoracic surgeons. Am. J. Roentgenol., July 1, 2006; 187(1): 143 - 148. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				D. M. Libby, N. Wu, I.-J. Lee, A. Farooqi, J. P. Smith, M. W. Pasmantier, D. McCauley, D. F. Yankelevitz, and C. I. Henschke CT Screening for Lung Cancer: The Value of Short-term CT Follow-up. Chest, April 1, 2006; 129(4): 1039 - 1042. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				H. T. Winer-Muram The solitary pulmonary nodule. Radiology, April 1, 2006; 239(1): 34 - 49. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				L. R. Goodman, M. Gulsun, L. Washington, P. G. Nagy, and K. L. Piacsek Inherent Variability of CT Lung Nodule Measurements In Vivo Using Semiautomated Volumetric Measurements. Am. J. Roentgenol., April 1, 2006; 186(4): 989 - 994. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				T. Bunyaviroch and R. E. Coleman PET Evaluation of Lung Cancer J. Nucl. Med., March 1, 2006; 47(3): 451 - 469. [Full Text] [PDF]

				The International Early Lung Cancer Action Program Computed tomographic screening for lung cancer: the relationship of disease stage to tumor size. Arch Intern Med, February 13, 2006; 166(3): 321 - 325. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				H. MacMahon, J. H. M. Austin, G. Gamsu, C. J. Herold, J. R. Jett, D. P. Naidich, E. F. Patz Jr, and S. J. Swensen Guidelines for Management of Small Pulmonary Nodules Detected on CT Scans: A Statement from the Fleischner Society Radiology, November 1, 2005; 237(2): 395 - 400. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				F. Li, H. Arimura, K. Suzuki, J. Shiraishi, Q. Li, H. Abe, R. Engelmann, S. Sone, H. MacMahon, and K. Doi Computer-aided Detection of Peripheral Lung Cancers Missed at CT: ROC Analyses without and with Localization Radiology, November 1, 2005; 237(2): 684 - 690. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				K. G. Kim, J. M. Goo, J. H. Kim, H. J. Lee, B. G. Min, K. T. Bae, and J.-G. Im Computer-aided Diagnosis of Localized Ground-Glass Opacity in the Lung at CT: Initial Experience Radiology, November 1, 2005; 237(2): 657 - 661. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				C. I. Henschke Computed Tomography Screening for Lung Cancer: Principles and Results Clin. Cancer Res., July 1, 2005; 11(13): 4984s - 4987s. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				W. D. Travis, K. Garg, W. A. Franklin, I. I. Wistuba, B. Sabloff, M. Noguchi, R. Kakinuma, M. Zakowski, M. Ginsberg, R. Padera, et al. Evolving Concepts in the Pathology and Computed Tomography Imaging of Lung Adenocarcinoma and Bronchioloalveolar Carcinoma J. Clin. Oncol., May 10, 2005; 23(14): 3279 - 3287. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				F. Li, S. Sone, H. Abe, H. MacMahon, and K. Doi Malignant versus Benign Nodules at CT Screening for Lung Cancer: Comparison of Thin-Section CT Findings Radiology, December 1, 2004; 233(3): 793 - 798. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				F. Li, M. Aoyama, J. Shiraishi, H. Abe, Q. Li, K. Suzuki, R. Engelmann, S. Sone, H. MacMahon, and K. Doi Radiologists' Performance for Differentiating Benign from Malignant Lung Nodules on High-Resolution CT Using Computer-Estimated Likelihood of Malignancy Am. J. Roentgenol., November 1, 2004; 183(5): 1209 - 1215. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				C. A. Meyer, R. T. Shipley, K. S. Lee, T. Johkoh, and R. Kakinuma Invited Commentary * Authors' Response RadioGraphics, November 1, 2004; 24(6): 1632 - 1636. [Full Text] [PDF]

				D R Baldwin, J D Birchall, R H Ganatra, and K S Pointon Evaluation of the solitary pulmonary nodule: clinical management, role of CT and nuclear medicine Imaging, October 1, 2004; 16(1): 22 - 36. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				W. J. Kostis, D. F. Yankelevitz, A. P. Reeves, S. C. Fluture, and C. I. Henschke Small Pulmonary Nodules: Reproducibility of Three-dimensional Volumetric Measurement and Estimation of Time to Follow-up CT Radiology, May 1, 2004; 231(2): 446 - 452. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				M.-P. Revel, C. Lefort, A. Bissery, M. Bienvenu, L. Aycard, G. Chatellier, and G. Frija Pulmonary Nodules: Preliminary Experience with Three-dimensional Evaluation Radiology, May 1, 2004; 231(2): 459 - 466. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				D. M. Libby, J. P. Smith, N. K. Altorki, M. W. Pasmantier, D. Yankelevitz, and C. I. Henschke Managing the Small Pulmonary Nodule Discovered by CT Chest, April 1, 2004; 125(4): 1522 - 1529. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				C.I. Henschke, D.F. Yankelevitz, D.I. McCauley, D.M. Libby, M.W. Pasmantier, and J.P. Smith Guidelines for the use of spiral computed tomography in screening for lung cancer Eur. Respir. J., January 1, 2003; 21(39_suppl): 45S - 51s. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

This Article Abstract