Comparison of CT Radiation Dose Indices in Examinations Associated with Solid and Part-Solid Pulmonary Nodules
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.65405/txp89w34Keywords:
Computed tomography; pulmonary nodules; solid nodules; part-solid nodules; CTDIvol; SSDE; radiation dose; dose optimizationAbstract
Background: Chest computed tomography (CT) is essential for the detection and follow-up of pulmonary nodules, but repeated examinations require radiation dose optimization while maintaining diagnostic image quality. The relationship between pulmonary nodule type and CT radiation dose indices remains insufficiently investigated.
Objective: To compare CTDIvol and SSDE between chest CT examinations associated with non-calcified solid and part-solid pulmonary nodules while accounting for the correlation among multiple nodules within the same patient.
Materials and Methods: A retrospective comparative study included 99 non-calcified pulmonary nodules from 51 patients, comprising 63 solid nodules (63.6%) and 36 part-solid nodules (36.4%). Patient age, nodule type, CTDIvol, and SSDE were recorded. A Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE) model was used with Patient ID as the clustering unit. Statistical significance was set at p < 0.05.
Results: Mean age was 57.37 ± 16.90 years for solid nodules and 66.56 ± 14.24 years for part-solid nodules. Mean CTDIvol was 6.06 ± 2.05 mGy and 6.09 ± 1.75 mGy, respectively, while mean SSDE was 7.77 ± 2.34 mGy and 7.52 ± 2.24 mGy, respectively. After accounting for within-patient clustering, no statistically significant differences were observed in age (mean difference: 0.14 years; 95% CI: −0.04 to 0.32; p = 0.117), CTDIvol (0.03 mGy; 95% CI: −0.36 to 0.42; p = 0.891), or SSDE (−0.01 mGy; 95% CI: −0.07 to 0.06; p = 0.874).
Conclusion: No statistically significant differences in CTDIvol or SSDE were found between non-calcified solid and part-solid pulmonary nodules after accounting for within-patient correlation. Nodule type was not associated with the radiation dose indices investigated. These findings highlight the importance of accounting for clustered observations and optimizing chest CT protocols to balance radiation dose and diagnostic image quality.
Downloads
References
1. American Association of Physicists in Medicine. (2011). Size-specific dose estimates (SSDE) in pediatric and adult body CT examinations (AAPM Report No. 204). American Association of Physicists in Medicine. https://doi.org/10.37206/143
2. American Association of Physicists in Medicine. (2014). Use of water equivalent diameter for calculating patient size and size-specific dose estimates (SSDE) in CT: The report of AAPM Task Group 220 (AAPM Report No. 220). American Association of Physicists in Medicine. https://doi.org/10.37206/146
3. Diederich, S., Lenzen, H., Windmann, R., Puskas, Z., Yelbuz, T. M., Henneken, S., Klaiber, T., Eameri, M., Roos, N., & Peters, P. E. (1999). Pulmonary nodules: Experimental and clinical studies at low-dose CT. Radiology, 213(1), 289–298. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiology.213.1.r99oc29289
4. Gheysens, G., De Wever, W., Cockmartin, L., Bosmans, H., Coudyzer, W., De Vuysere, S., & Lefere, M. (2022). Detection of pulmonary nodules with scoutless fixed-dose ultra-low-dose CT: A prospective study. European Radiology, 32(7), 4437–4445. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-022-08584-y
5. Gobi, K., Arunachalam, V. K., Varatharajaperumal, R. K., Cherian, M., Periaswamy, G., & Rajesh, S. (2022). The role of ultra-low-dose computed tomography in the detection of pulmonary pathologies: A prospective observational study. Polish Journal of Radiology, 87, e597–e605. https://doi.org/10.5114/pjr.2022.121433
6. Hu, Q.-J., Liu, Y.-W., Chen, C., Kang, S.-C., Sun, Z.-Y., Wang, Y.-J., Xiang, M., Xia, L.-M., & Guan, H.-X. (2021). Prospective study of low- and standard-dose chest CT for pulmonary nodule detection: A comparison of image quality, size measurements and radiation exposure. Current Medical Science, 41(5), 966–973. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11596-021-2433-z
7. MacMahon, H., Naidich, D. P., Goo, J. M., Lee, K. S., Leung, A. N. C., Mayo, J. R., Mehta, A. C., Ohno, Y., Powell, C. A., Prokop, M., Rubin, G. D., Schaefer-Prokop, C. M., Travis, W. D., Van Schil, P. E., & Bankier, A. A. (2017). Guidelines for management of incidental pulmonary nodules detected on CT images: From the Fleischner Society 2017. Radiology, 284(1), 228–243. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2017161659
8. National Lung Screening Trial Research Team. (2011). Reduced lung-cancer mortality with low-dose computed tomographic screening. New England Journal of Medicine, 365(5), 395–409. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1102873
9. Paks, M., Leong, P., Einsiedel, P., Irving, L. B., Steinfort, D. P., & Pascoe, D. M. (2018). Ultralow dose CT for follow-up of solid pulmonary nodules: A pilot single-center study using Bland-Altman analysis. Medicine, 97(34), e12019. https://doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000012019
10. Sowan, E., Elbuaishi, A., & Areir, M. (2026). Enhancing Face Recognition Performance: A Comparative Evaluation of ArcFace and FaceNet using Image Preprocessing and ROC–EER Metrics. Al-Farooq Journal of Sciences, 2(3), 973-990. https://doi.org/10.65405/fxzgn321
11. Revel, M.-P., Mannes, I., Benzakoun, J., Guinet, C., Léger, T., Grenier, P., Lupo, A., Fournel, L., Chassagnon, G., & Bommart, S. (2018). Subsolid lung nodule classification: A CT criterion for improving interobserver agreement. Radiology, 286(1), 316–325. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2017170044
12. Ridge, C. A., Yankelevitz, D. F., Bankier, A. A., & et al. (2016). Differentiating between subsolid and solid pulmonary nodules at CT: Inter- and intraobserver agreement between experienced thoracic radiologists. Radiology, 278(3), 888–896. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2015150714
13. Vardhanabhuti, V., Pang, C.-L., Tenant, S., Taylor, J., Hyde, C., & Roobottom, C. (2017). Prospective intra-individual comparison of standard dose versus reduced-dose thoracic CT using hybrid and pure iterative reconstruction in a follow-up cohort of pulmonary nodules—Effect of detectability of pulmonary nodules with lowering dose based on nodule size, type and body mass index. European Journal of Radiology, 91, 130–141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2017.04.006
14. The data used in this study were obtained from the official Low Dose CT Image and Projection Data (LDCT-and-Projection-data), Version 7 dataset available through The Cancer Imaging Archive (TCIA) (McCollough et al., 2020). The dataset was accessed through the official TCIA collection page: https://www.cancerimagingarchive.net/collection/ldct-and-projection-data/.
