4.7 Article

Solitary Pure Ground-Glass Nodules 5 mm or Smaller: Frequency of Growth

Journal

RADIOLOGY
Volume 276, Issue 3, Pages 873-882

Publisher

RADIOLOGICAL SOC NORTH AMERICA
DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2015141071

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare, Tokyo, Japan [22-019, 26-094]
  2. National Cancer Center Research and Development Fund [23-A-48]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose: To clarify the percentage of solitary pure ground-glass nodules (SPGGNs) 5 mm or smaller that grow and develop into invasive adenocarcinomas. Materials and Methods: This study was approved by the institutional review board, and informed consent was obtained from all people who were screened. From February 2004 through December 2007, 7294 participants underwent screening for lung cancer with computed tomographic (CT) imaging. The nodule database was reviewed to identify SPGGNs 5 mm or smaller. Growth of the SPGGNs was evaluated as of March 31, 2013. In cases of pathologic analysis-proven adenocarcinomas that developed from SPGGNs 5 mm or smaller, solid components were evaluated. Percentages, 95% confidence intervals, and means were calculated. Results: At baseline screening, 438 SPGGNs 5 mm or smaller were identified, and during the study period one SPGGN 5 mm or smaller developed de novo. Of the 439 SPGGNs, 394 were stable and 45 (10.3% [95% confidence interval: 7.5%, 13.7%]), including newly developed SPGGN, grew. Of the 45 SPGGNs that grew, 0.9% (four of 439 [95% confidence interval: 0.3%, 2.3%]) developed into adenocarcinomas (two minimally invasive [including the newly developed SPGGN] and two invasive). The mean period between baseline CT screening and the appearance of solid components in the four adenocarcinomas was 3.6 years. Conclusion: Of SPGGNs 5 mm or smaller, approximately 10% will grow and 1% will develop into invasive adenocarcinomas or minimally invasive adenocarcinomas. SPGGNs 5 mm or smaller should be rescanned 3.5 years later to look for development of a solid component. (C) RSNA, 2015

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available