Dual-energy Computed Tomography for the Evaluation of Enhancement of Pulmonary Nodules≤3 cm in Size.
OBJECTIVE
The aim of the study was to compare the accuracies of 4 different methods of assessing pulmonary nodule enhancement to distinguish benign from malignant solid pulmonary nodules using nondynamic contrast-enhanced dual-energy computed tomography.


METHODS
Seventy-two patients (mean age, 62 y) underwent dual-energy chest computed tomography 3 minutes after intravenous contrast administration. Each of 118 pulmonary nodules (9±5.9 mm) were evaluated for enhancement by 4 methods: visual assessment, 3-dimensional automated postprocessing measurement tool, manually drawn region of interest with calculated iodine-related attenuation, and measurement of iodine concentration. The optimal cutoff for enhancement was defined as having the largest specificity among all cutoffs while maintaining 100% sensitivity. Accuracy of the methods was assessed with receiver operating characteristic curves.


RESULTS
Ninety-three of 118 pulmonary nodules were benign (79%). Visual assessment of enhancement had sensitivity and specificity of 100% and 44%, respectively. For the automated 3-dimensional measurement tool, 20 HU was found to be the optimal threshold for defining enhancement, resulting in a specificity of 71% and a sensitivity of 100%, as well as an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.87 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.82-0.92). The AUC was 0.79 (95% CI, 0.73-0.85) for the measured enhancement using a manually drawn region of interest. When a threshold of 21 HU was used for defining enhancement, maximum specificity was obtained (56%) while maintaining 100% sensitivity. The AUC for measured iodine concentration was 0.79 (95% CI, 0.77-0.85). At a cutoff iodine concentration of 0.6 mg/mL, the sensitivity was 100% with a specificity of 57%.


CONCLUSIONS
Although use of automated postprocessing had the highest specificity while maintaining 100% sensitivity, there were only minor clinically relevant differences between measurement techniques given that no single technique misclassified a malignant nodule as nonenhancing.
*Department of Radiology, Stony Brook University Medical Center, Stony Brook, NY †Department of Radiology, Brooke Army Medical Center, San Antonio, TX ‡Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, Bethesda, MD.
Michael J
MJ
Reiter
Weston T
WT
Winkler
Kenton E
KE
Kagy
Ryan B
RB
Schwope
Christopher J
CJ
Lisanti
D003287:Contrast Media; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D021621:Imaging, Three-Dimensional / Q000379:methods; D008168:Lung / Q000000981:diagnostic imaging; D008175:Lung Neoplasms / Q000000981:diagnostic imaging*; D008297:Male; D008875:Middle Aged; D055613:Multiple Pulmonary Nodules / Q000000981:diagnostic imaging*; D011856:Radiographic Image Enhancement / Q000379:methods; D015900:Radiography, Dual-Energy Scanned Projection / Q000379:methods; D015203:Reproducibility of Results; D012680:Sensitivity and Specificity; D003074:Solitary Pulmonary Nodule / Q000000981:diagnostic imaging*; D014057:Tomography, X-Ray Computed / Q000379:methods*
D003287:Contrast Media