2018
DOI: 10.1016/j.cllc.2017.05.023
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

High-resolution Computed Tomography Features Distinguishing Benign and Malignant Lesions Manifesting as Persistent Solitary Subsolid Nodules

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
4
1

Citation Types

6
63
1

Year Published

2019
2019
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
9

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 44 publications
(70 citation statements)
references
References 32 publications
6
63
1
Order By: Relevance
“…However, in our study, on baseline CT examinations, other features such as size, attenuation, and borders were unable to distinguish between benign and malignant SSN; these features were only effective on final follow up chest CT. These contradictory observations may be related to different patient and nodule subtypes in our study compared to Yang et al [24], although it is likely that our study employed quantitative radiomics versus subjective assessment used in the prior study.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 63%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…However, in our study, on baseline CT examinations, other features such as size, attenuation, and borders were unable to distinguish between benign and malignant SSN; these features were only effective on final follow up chest CT. These contradictory observations may be related to different patient and nodule subtypes in our study compared to Yang et al [24], although it is likely that our study employed quantitative radiomics versus subjective assessment used in the prior study.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 63%
“…Yang et al have reported that morphologic features such as lesion size, borders, and spiculated margins can help differentiate benign and malignant PGGN [18]. Their study of 1934 subsolid nodules (including 94 benign and 1840 malignant) reported that larger size, well-defined borders, and spiculated margins favor malignant over benign etiology for subsolid nodules [24]. We also found that a shape radiomic feature (surface: volume ratio) helps in the characterization of subsolid nodules on the baseline and follow up chest CT.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In addition, the differential diagnosis of solitary solid pulmonary nodules has proven to be more difficult than that of sub-solid nodules. Studies of patients who have received surgical resections have shown that more than 90% of sub-solid nodules can be malignant [ 35 ], while the malignancy rate of solid nodules ranges from 53 to 75% [ 36 , 37 ]. This highlights the necessity of differentiating the nature of solid pulmonary nodules in an accurate and timely manner.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Nodule volume (log) is the common predictor to Model 1 and Model 2. Nodule size, either assessed with the nodule maximum diameter or with the nodule volume, has been identified as a significant predictor of invasiveness in several studies that aimed at a binary classification of lung adenocarcinoma invasiveness 5 , 6 , 11 , 13 . In our study, it also only modestly correlated with the best CT attenuation predictors (R: 0.30).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%