ArticleKorean journal of radiology
Diameter of the Solid Component in Subsolid Nodules on Low-Dose Unenhanced Chest Computed Tomography: Measurement Accuracy for the Prediction of Invasive Component in Lung Adenocarcinoma.
Article in Korean journal of radiology. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparative validation of clinical staging based on solid component versus total tumor size in resected lung adenocarcinoma.European radiology · 2025Article
- Comparative genomics between matched solid and lepidic portions of semi-solid lung adenocarcinomas.Lung cancer (Amsterdam, Netherlands) · 2023Article
- A radiomics nomogram for invasiveness prediction in lung adenocarcinoma manifesting as part-solid nodules with solid components smaller than 6 mm.Frontiers in oncology · 2022Article
- Characteristics of Recent Articles Published in the Korean Journal of Radiology Based on the Citation Frequency.Korean journal of radiology · 2020Article
- Gross handling of pulmonary resection specimen: maintaining the 3-dimensional orientation.Journal of thoracic disease · 2019Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To determine if measurement of the diameter of the solid component in subsolid nodules (SSNs) on low-dose unenhanced chest computed tomography (CT) is as accurate as on standard-dose enhanced CT in prediction of pathological size of invasive component of lung adenocarcinoma. Materials and Methods: From February 2012 to October 2015, 114 SSNs were identified in 105 patients that underwent low-dose unenhanced and standard-dose enhanced CT pre-operatively. Three radiologists independently measured the largest diameter of the solid component. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) were used to assess inter-reader agreement. We estimated measurement differences between the size of solid component and that of invasive component. We measured diagnostic accuracy of the prediction of invasive adenocarcinoma using a size criterion of a solid component ≥ 6 mm, and compared them using a generalized linear mixed model. Results: Inter-reader agreement was excellent (ICC, 0.84.0.89). The mean ± standard deviation of absolute measurement differences between the solid component and invasive component was 4 ± 4 mm in low-dose unenhanced CT and 5 ± 4 mm in standard-dose enhanced CT. Diagnostic accuracy was 81.3% (95% confidence interval, 76.7.85.3%) in low-dose unenhanced CT and 76.6% (71.8.81.0%) in standard-dose enhanced CT, with no statistically significant difference ( Conclusion: Measurement of the diameter of the solid component of SSNs on low-dose unenhanced chest CT was as accurate as on standard-dose enhanced CT for predicting the invasive component. Thus, low-dose unenhanced CT may be used safely in the evaluation of patients with SSNs.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.