Discriminating bronchiolar adenoma from peripheral lung cancer by thin-section computed tomography (CT): a 2-center study
Yang Tao1#, Ting-Wei Xiong1,2#, Qing-Shu Li3,4,5, Shi-Hai Yang1, Fa-Jin Lv1, Zhi-Gang Chu1
Contributions: (I) Conception and design: ZG Chu, Y Tao; (II) Administrative support: FJ Lv, ZG Chu; (III) Provision of study materials or patients: QS Li, SH Yang; (IV) Collection and assembly of data: Y Tao, TW Xiong; (V) Data analysis and interpretation: Y Tao, TW Xiong, ZG Chu; (VI) Manuscript writing: All authors; (VII) Final approval of manuscript: All authors.
#These authors contributed equally to this work.
Background: Bronchiolar adenoma (BA) is frequently misdiagnosed as peripheral lung cancer (PLC) because it resembles PLC. Computed tomography (CT) examination is an effective tool for detecting and diagnosing lung diseases. To date, there has been no comprehensive study on the differential diagnosis of BAs and PLCs using thin-section computed tomography (TSCT) based on a large sample, and the efficiency of CT in diagnosing BAs has not been verified. The goal of this study was to distinguish BA from PLC by summarizing their clinical and TSCT characteristics.
Methods: A retrospective cross-sectional study on 71 cases with BAs and 218 matched controls with PLCs (from March 2020 to May 2023) within 2 centers (The First Affiliated Hospital of Chongqing Medical University and the Second Affiliated Hospital of Army Medical University) was conducted to investigate their clinical and radiological differences. The clinical characteristics and TSCT features of BAs and PLCs were summarized and compared. A multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed to reveal the key predictors of BAs.
Results: The BAs and PLCs exhibited significant differences in TSCT features. Multivariate analysis revealed that the lesion being located in basal segments [odds ratio (OR), 17.835; 95% confidence interval (CI): 6.977–45.588; P<0.001], irregular shape (OR, 4.765; 95% CI: 1.877–12.099; P=0.001), negative of spiculation sign (OR, 7.436; 95% CI: 2.063–26.809; P=0.002), central vessel sign with pulmonary artery (OR, 3.576; 95% CI: 1.557–8.211; P=0.003), peripheral vessel sign with pulmonary vein (OR, 12.444; 95% CI: 4.934–31.383; P<0.001), and distance from lesion edge to pleura (D-ETP) ≤5 mm (OR, 5.535; 95% CI: 2.346–13.057; P<0.001) were independent predictors of BAs, and the area under the curve (AUC) of this model was 0.935; 95% CI: 0.901–0.960 (sensitivity: 88.0%, specificity: 86.03%, P<0.001).
Conclusions: Peripheral pulmonary nodules locating in the basal segment of lower lobe with irregular shape, central vessel sign with pulmonary artery, peripheral vessel sign with pulmonary vein and D-ETP ≤5 mm, but without spiculation sign, should be highly suspected of BAs.
Keywords: Lung neoplasms; bronchioles; adenoma; tomography; X-ray computed
Submitted Apr 02, 2024. Accepted for publication Jul 26, 2024. Published online Aug 19, 2024.
doi: 10.21037/qims-24-687
IntroductionOther Section
Recently, bronchiolar adenoma (BA) has been recognized as a group of benign peripheral lung tumors in the 2021 World Health Organization (WHO) classification of lung tumors (1). Clinically, patients with BAs typically do not exhibit obvious symptoms, and the lesions are often incidentally detected during physical examinations or while diagnosing and treating other conditions (2). On computed tomography (CT) images, BA typically presents as a solitary, irregular, and small peripheral lung nodule, which may manifest as solid, part-solid, or ground-glass opacification (2-5). Due to its resemblance to peripheral lung cancer (PLC), particularly adenocarcinoma in situ (AIS) and minimally invasive adenocarcinoma (MIA), BA is prone to being misdiagnosed (3-6). Consequently, accurately diagnosing BAs poses a significant challenge.
Needle biopsy has traditionally been utilized to confirm the diagnosis of lung lesions prior to surgery (7-9). However, this procedure is invasive and carries certain risks (10,11). Furthermore, accurately diagnosing BAs through percutaneous or transbronchial biopsy is challenging due to their small size and peripheral distribution.
Making a correct diagnosis of BA via intraoperative frozen section is complex as some lesions lack typical pathological features and may resemble lung cancers (2,12-16). The preoperative or intraoperative misdiagnosis of BA may lead to unnecessary surgical resection or wide excision. Therefore, it is necessary to identify a non-traumatic method to effectively distinguish BA from lung cancer.
CT examination is an effective tool for detecting and diagnosing lung diseases. Currently, since it’s proposal in 2018, most of the studies on BA have focused on the pathological findings (2,7-9,12-16). Only a small number of articles in English have introduced the CT features of BAs and their differential diagnosis (3-5). Onishi et al. (4) firstly introduced the thin-section CT (TSCT) features of ciliated muconodular papillary tumors (a former name of BA), but only a few radiological indicators were studied. Cao et al. (3) distinguished BA from AIS and MIA by comparing their CT features, but only ground-glass nodules (GGNs) were included. Another study focused on CT texture analysis in distinguishing BA from AIS/MIA (5). The sample size of BAs in these studies was very small. Therefore, there is no comprehensive study in differential diagnosis of BA and PLC using TSCT based on a large sample, and the efficiency of CT in diagnosing BAs has not been verified.
In this study, the clinical and TSCT characteristics of BAs and PLCs from 2 hospitals were thoroughly evaluated with the aim of revealing their differences and identifying the key indicators of BAs. We present this article in accordance with the STROBE reporting checklist (available at https://qims.amegroups.com/article/view/10.21037/qims-24-687/rc).
MethodsOther Section
The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki (as revised in 2013). This retrospective study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of The First Affiliated Hospital of Chongqing Medical University (No. 2019-062) and The Second Affiliated Hospital of Army Medical University (No. 2020-research147-01). Additionally, due to the retrospective nature of this study, the requirement for informed consent was waived.
Patients
We retrospectively collected the data of patients in the Electronic Medical Record System who had pulmonary lesions that had been pathologically diagnosed as BA after surgical resection from March 2020 to May 2023. Meanwhile, patients with surgically resected and pathologically confirmed PLC were selected as the control group by individually matching them with the similar size, same surgery year, similar age (±1 year), and same type on CT images at a ratio of 3:1. Their chest CT data were collected and reviewed on the picture archiving and communication system (Vue PACS; Carestream, Rochester, NY, USA). In this study, the inclusion criteria of BAs and lung cancers were as follows: (I) patients had preoperative chest CT scans; (II) patients’ complete clinical data were available. The exclusion criteria were as follows: (I) the lung cancers were central type or masses (diameter >3 cm) on CT images because all of the BAs were nodules and located peripherally; (II) no TSCT images with a thickness of ≤1 mm; (III) presence of artifacts on CT images affecting evaluation; (IV) nodules were confirmed as metastatic tumors. After preliminarily searching, a total of 76 BAs were enrolled. Among the 76 BAs, 1 was excluded because this patient had multiple similar nodules in the left upper lobe and some of them were lung cancers, so it was difficult to confirm which was BA. Finally, a total of 75 BAs (36 from The First Affiliated Hospital of Chongqing Medical University and 39 from The Second Affiliated Hospital of Army Medical University) in 71 patients and 229 PLCs (109 from The First Affiliated Hospital of Chongqing Medical University, 120 from The Second Affiliated Hospital of Army Medical University) in 218 patients were included in this study (Figure 1).
Figure 1 Patient selection flowchart. BAs, bronchiolar adenomas; CT, computed tomography; TSCT, thin-section computed tomography.
CT examinations
All patients underwent chest CT examinations using one of the following CT scanners: SOMATOM Perspective (Siemens Healthineers, Erlangen, Germany), SOMATOM Definition Flash (Siemens Healthineers, Germany), SOMATOM Force (Siemens Healthineers, Germany), Discovery CT750 HD (GE Healthcare, Milwaukee, WI, USA), and Aquilion ONE pure ViSION (Canon Medical System, Tokyo, Japan). In order to minimize breathing artifacts, all CT scans were performed at the end of inspiration during a single breath-hold. The scan range was from the thoracic entrance to the costophrenic angle. The CT scan was acquired with the following settings: tube voltage, 110–130 kVp; tube current time, 50–140 mA (using automatic current modulation technology); scanning slice thickness, 5 mm; rotation time, 0.5 s; pitch, 1–1.1; collimation, 0.6 or 0.625 mm; reconstruction slice thickness and interval, 0.625 or 1 mm; matrix, 512×512. Plain CT scans were performed on all patients, and 76 (26.3%) of them (5 with BAs and 71 with PLCs) underwent contrast-enhanced CT scan with a total of 80–100 mL of nonionic iodinated contrast material (iopamidol, 320 mg/mL; Shanghai Bracco Sine Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., Shanghai, China) at an injection rate of 3.0 mL/s, followed by 50 mL of saline solution via a power injector. Images with mediastinal (width, 350–400 HU; level, 20–40 HU) and lung (width, 1,200–1,600 HU; level, −500 to −700 HU) window settings were obtained.
Clinical data and image analysis
The patients’ clinical data were obtained by using the Electronic Medical Record System (Winning Health, Shanghai, China). Clinical data included patients’ age, gender, smoking history, clinical symptoms (cough, expectoration, hemoptysis, chest pain, back pain, and fever), and history of malignant tumor.
The patients’ chest TSCT data were analyzed on the PACS with lung window settings (width, 1,200–1,600 HU; level, −500 to −700 HU) and mediastinal window setting (width, 350–400 HU; level, 20–40 HU). All patients’ CT data were reviewed independently by 2 radiologists (Y.T. and T.W.X. with 6 and 10 years of experience in chest CT, respectively) who were blinded to clinical information and pathological diagnosis. Any interobserver discordance was resolved by reevaluating the images together or consulting with senior radiologists to reach a consensus.
The following CT features of nodules were analyzed based on the non-contrast enhanced TSCT images: distribution in lobes and segments (upper, middle or lower lobe; apical, posterior, front, inner or outer, dorsal, basal or lingual segment), size (the mean of the longest diameter and the perpendicular diameter on axial CT images), CT pattern [pure GGNs (pGGNs), part-solid nodules (PSNs) or solid nodules (SNs)], mean CT value, density (homogeneous or heterogeneous), shape (regular or irregular), boundary (ill-defined or well-defined), margin (smooth or coarse), lobulation sign, spiculation sign, vacuole sign, air bronchogram sign, bronchial cut-off sign, central vessel sign and peripheral vessel sign and the type of vessels (pulmonary artery, pulmonary vein, or both), distance from lesion edge to pleura (D-ETP) (≤5 or >5 mm), distance from lesion center to pleura (D-CTP) (≤10 or >10 mm) (Figure 2), locally or totally attaching to pleura, pleural indentation sign, intrathoracic lymph node enlargement, and changes during follow-up. GGN was shown as a hazy opacity with the presence of the bronchial structures or underlying pulmonary vessels in high resolution CT (17). The difference between pGGN and PSN was the presence of solid components in it. The mean CT value was measured with a region of interest at the section with the most solid components (PSNs) or that with largest diameter of the lesion (pGGNs and SNs). The shape of oval or round was defined as regular; neither of them was defined as irregular. Well-defined boundary was defined as a clear tumor-lung interface, otherwise it was ill-defined. The margin was only evaluated for those lesions with well-defined boundary. Lobulation sign was defined as an abrupt bulging of the contour of the lesion (18). Spiculation sign was defined as linear strands that extended from the nodule surface into the lung parenchyma without reaching a pleural surface (19). Vacuole sign was defined as round or irregular air attenuation with a 1–2 mm diameter in a nodule (20). Air bronchogram sign was defined as a lucency along a regular bronchial wall within the lesion (21). In this study, central vessel sign was defined as vessels connecting with the middle part of a lesion margin that was opposite to the pleura; peripheral vessel sign was defined as vessels connecting with the other part of a lesion margin (Figure 3). Intrathoracic lymph node enlargement was defined as mediastinal or hilar lymph nodes with a diameter of at least 1 cm in short axes (22).
Figure 2 A 61-year-old female with BA, presented as a solid nodule in the left upper lobe. The white dotted circle was drawn with the maximum radius of the nodule and aimed to determine the center of the lesion. The blue lines show the parallel lines to pleura from the lesion center and lesion edge, respectively. The red and yellow dotted lines show the vertical D-ETP and the vertical D-CTP on axial CT image, respectively. BA, bronchiolar adenoma; D-ETP, distance from lesion edge to pleura; D-CTP, distance from lesion center to pleura; CT, computed tomography.
Figure 3 A 53-year-old female with BA, presented as a part-solid nodule in the posterior basal segment of right lower lobe on axial TSCT image. The white dotted circle shows the margin of the nodule. (A) Central vessel sign: a vessel (arrow) connects with the middle part of lesion margin (white dotted line) which is opposite to the pleura. (B) Peripheral vessel sign: 2 vessels (arrows) connect with the other part of lesion margin. (C) An MIP image is used for displaying the central vessel sign and peripheral vessel sign. BA, bronchiolar adenoma; TSCT, thin-section computed tomography; MIP, maximum intensity projection.
Statistical analysis
The patients’ clinical data and CT features of nodules were analyzed using the statistical software SPSS 21.0 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA) and MedCalc (MedCalc Software, Ostend, Belgium). Continuous variables were expressed as mean ± standard deviation (SD); categorical variables were expressed as number and percentage. The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was used to assess the interobserver agreement of continuous variables, and Cohen’s kappa or Fleiss’ kappa coefficient was used to assess the interobserver agreement of categorical variables. Interobserver agreement based on ICC was classified as poor (<0.50), moderate (0.50−0.74), good (0.75−0.89), or excellent (≥0.90). Interobserver agreement based on kappa coefficients was categorized as slight (≤0.20), fair (0.21−0.40), moderate (0.41−0.60), substantial (0.61−0.80), or almost perfect (≥0.81). The Kolmogorov-Smirnov test was used to assess the normal distribution of the continuous variables. In order to compare differences in variables between BAs and PLCs, Student’s t-test was used for normally distributed data (patient age), Mann-Whitney U-test was used for non-normally distributed data (nodule size and mean CT value), and Pearson’s Chi-squared test was used for sex, clinical symptoms, history of malignant tumor, smoking history, lesion location, CT pattern, uniformity of density, shape, boundary, margin, lobulation sign, spiculation sign, vacuole sign, air bronchogram sign, bronchial cut-off sign, central vessel sign and peripheral vessel sign and the corresponding type of vessels, D-ETP (≤5 or >5 mm), D-CTP (≤10 or >10 mm), local or total attachment to pleura, pleural indentation sign, intrathoracic lymph node enlargement, and changes during follow-up. Variables with statistical differences were further included in logistic regression analysis to determine independent factors for predicting BAs. A 2-sided P value of <0.05 was considered indicative of a statistically significant difference.
ResultsOther Section
Patients’ clinical characteristics
Among the 71 patients with 75 BAs, 1 had 3 lesions and 2 had 2 lesions. Meanwhile, a total of 29 concomitant nodules in 24 patients (1 had 3 lesions and 3 had 2 lesions) were confirmed as PLCs. Among the 218 patients with 229 PLCs, 7 had 2 lesions and 2 had 3 lesions. The 229 PLCs included 76 (33.2%) invasive adenocarcinomas, 87 (38.0%) MIAs, 58 (25.3%) AISs, 5 (2.2%) invasive mucinous adenocarcinoma, 1 (0.4%) squamous cell carcinomas, 1 (0.4%) atypical carcinoid, and 1 (0.4%) acinar adenocarcinoma. Table 1 summarizes the patients’ clinical characteristics. The BAs and PLCs were all more common in women (60.6% and 67.9%, respectively, P=0.257). Similar to patients with PLCs, more individuals had no clinical symptoms in those with BAs (84.9% and 91.5%, respectively, P=0.152).
Table 1
Patients’ clinical characteristics
Characteristics | Patients with BAs (n=71) | Patients with PLCs (n=218) | P value |
---|---|---|---|
Number of lesions | 75 | 229 | – |
Age (years) | 55.38±13.56 | 53.67±11.64 | 0.302 |
Sex | 0.257 | ||
Female | 43 (60.6) | 148 (67.9) | |
Male | 28 (39.4) | 70 (32.1) | |
Clinical symptoms | 0.152 | ||
Yes | 6 (8.5) | 33 (15.1) | |
No | 65 (91.5) | 185 (84.9) | |
History of malignant tumor | 0.508 | ||
Yes | 5 (7.0) | 21 (9.6) | |
No | 66 (93.0) | 197 (90.4) | |
Smoking history | 0.867 | ||
Yes | 14 (19.7) | 45 (20.6) | |
No | 57 (80.3) | 173 (79.4) |
Data are expressed as number (percentage) or mean ± standard deviation. BAs, bronchiolar adenomas; PLCs, peripheral lung cancers.
The pathological characteristics of BAs
In the BAs, the characteristic histological features included a bilayered bronchiolar-type epithelium with a continuous basal cell layer. The luminal cell layer typically exhibited abundant mucinous and ciliated cells. Immunohistochemical (IHC) staining commonly showed positivity for markers such as p63, p40, and CK5/6 in the basal cell layer (Figure 4). Among the 75 BAs in the study, 53 underwent IHC staining, revealing positive rates of 93.9% (31/33) for p40, 93.9% (46/49) for p63, 89.4% (42/47) for CK5/6, 100% (49/49) for Ki-67, 89.6% (43/48) for TTF-1, and 66.7% (16/24) for Napsin-A.
Figure 4 A 53-year-old male with BA. (A) A round and well-defined solid nodule with a diameter of 7.8 mm is located in the lateral basal segment of the right lower lobe on axial TSCT image. It closely attaches to the pleura and has heterogeneous density. Peripheral vessel sign (a pulmonary vein, arrow) is positive. (B) Central vessel sign (a pulmonary artery, arrow) is positive. (C) Photomicrograph image shows the lesion is composed of a bilayered bronchiolar-type epithelium with a continuous basal cell layer. The luminal cells show abundant mucinous and ciliated cells (H&E, 100×). Immunohistochemical staining shows p63, p40, and CK5/6 positivity in basal cell layer (200×). H&E, hematoxylin and eosin; BA, bronchiolar adenoma; TSCT, thin-section computed tomography.
Interobserver agreement
Table 2 summarizes the interobserver agreement for the CT features. For the continuous variables, agreements were all good (ICC: 0.75–0.89). For the categorical indicators, agreement for uniformity of density was substantial (Kappa coefficient: 0.61–0.80), and other agreements were almost perfect (Kappa coefficient ≥0.81).
Table 2
Interobserver agreement for CT features
CT features | Metric | 95% CI | P value |
---|---|---|---|
Diameter | 0.880 | 0.847–0.906 | <0.001 |
Types on CT images | 0.816 | 0.751–0.881 | <0.001 |
Mean CT value | 0.883 | 0.847–0.911 | <0.001 |
Uniformity of density | 0.707 | 0.615–0.799 | <0.001 |
Shape | 0.813 | 0.748–0.878 | <0.001 |
Boundary | 0.838 | 0.728–0.948 | <0.001 |
Margin | 0.874 | 0.776–0.972 | <0.001 |
Lobulation sign | 0.863 | 0.775–0.951 | <0.001 |
Spiculation sign | 0.892 | 0.823–0.961 | <0.001 |
Vacuole sign | 0.855 | 0.741–0.969 | <0.001 |
Air bronchogram | 0.846 | 0.715–0.977 | <0.001 |
Bronchial cut-off sign | 0.853 | 0.651–1.055 | <0.001 |
Central vessel sign | 0.850 | 0.797–0.957 | <0.001 |
Type of central vessels | 0.877 | 0.797–0.957 | <0.001 |
Peripheral vessel sign | 0.845 | 0.772–0.918 | <0.001 |
Type of peripheral vessels | 0.851 | 0.794–0.908 | <0.001 |
D-ETP | 0.882 | 0.843–0.911 | <0.001 |
D-CTP | 0.892 | 0.856–0.918 | <0.001 |
Attaching to pleura | 0.829 | 0.745–0.913 | <0.001 |
Pleural indentation sign | 0.850 | 0.754–0.946 | <0.001 |
Intrathoracic lymph node enlargement | 0.853 | 0.704–1.002 | <0.001 |
Metric represents intraclass correlation coefficient for continuous variables and kappa coefficient for categorical variables. CT, computed tomography; CI, confidence interval; D-ETP, distance from lesion edge to pleura; D-CTP, distance from lesion center to pleura.
Comparison of CT features of BAs and PLCs
The CT features of BAs and PLCs are summarized in Table 3. Compared with PLCs, more BAs located in the basal segments of the lower lobes and had irregular shape (each P<0.001). Attaching to pleura and vacuole sign were more common in BAs than in PLCs (each P<0.05). Lobulation and spiculation sign were all less common in BAs than in PLCs (each P<0.05). Central vessel sign and peripheral vessel sign were both more common in BAs than in PLCs (P<0.05). For the BAs and PLCs with central vessel sign and peripheral vessel sign, both the pulmonary artery and pulmonary vein were more common in the former (each P<0.001). The proportions of lesions with D-ETP ≤5 mm and D-CTP ≤10 mm in BAs were significantly higher than those in PLCs (each P<0.001) (Figure 4).
Table 3
CT features of the BAs and PLCs
Features | BAs (n=75) | PLCs (n=229) | P value |
---|---|---|---|
Distribution in lobe | |||
Upper lobe | 11 (14.7) | 133 (58.1) | <0.001 |
Middle lobe | 3 (4.0) | 21 (9.2) | 0.180 |
Lower lobe | 61 (81.3) | 75 (32.8) | <0.001 |
Distribution in segment | |||
Apical/posterior segment | 8 (10.7) | 86 (37.6) | <0.001 |
Front segment | 3 (4.0) | 33 (14.4) | 0.015 |
Inner and outer segment | 3 (4.0) | 21 (9.2) | 0.150 |
Dorsal segment | 11 (14.7) | 33 (14.4) | 0.956 |
Lingual segment | 0 (0) | 14 (6.1) | 0.061 |
Basal segment | 50 (66.7) | 42 (18.3) | <0.001 |
Diameter (mm) | 6.86±3.86 | 6.86±3.13 | 0.301 |
Types on CT images | 0.906 | ||
SN | 36 (48.0) | 104 (45.4) | |
PSN | 26 (34.7) | 81 (35.4) | |
pGGN | 13 (17.3) | 44 (19.2) | |
Mean CT value (HU) | −322.81±190.71 | −287.08±236.11 | 0.282 |
Uniformity of density | 0.533 | ||
Homogeneous | 30 (40.0) | 101 (44.1) | |
Heterogeneous | 45 (60.0) | 128 (55.9) | |
Shape | <0.001 | ||
Irregular | 32 (42.7) | 39 (17.0) | |
Regular | 43 (57.3) | 190 (83.0) | |
Boundary | 0.827 | ||
Well-defined | 64 (85.3) | 193 (84.3) | |
Ill-defined | 11 (14.7) | 36 (15.7) | |
Margin* | 0.177 | ||
Smooth | 47 (73.4) | 124 (64.2) | |
Coarse | 17 (26.6) | 69 (35.8) | |
Lobulation sign | 4 (5.3) | 35 (15.3) | 0.025 |
Spiculation sign | 5 (6.7) | 52 (22.7) | 0.002 |
Vacuole sign | 16 (21.3) | 20 (8.7) | 0.003 |
Air bronchogram | 7 (9.3) | 17 (7.4) | 0.595 |
Bronchial cut-off sign | 0 (0) | 7 (3.1) | 0.276 |
Central vessel sign | 0.003 | ||
Yes | 61 (81.3) | 144 (62.9) | |
Type of vessels | |||
Pulmonary artery | 53 (86.9) | 58 (40.3) | <0.001 |
Pulmonary vein | 6 (9.8) | 63 (43.8) | <0.001 |
Both | 2 (3.3) | 23 (16.0) | 0.011 |
No | 14 (18.7) | 85 (37.1) | |
Peripheral vessel sign | <0.001 | ||
Yes | 69 (92.0) | 152 (66.4) | |
Type of vessels | |||
Pulmonary artery | 7 (10.1) | 86 (56.6) | <0.001 |
Pulmonary vein | 60 (87.0) | 58 (38.2) | <0.001 |
Both | 2 (2.9) | 8 (5.3) | 0.664 |
No | 6 (8.0) | 77 (33.6) | |
D-ETP | <0.001 | ||
≤5 mm | 57 (76.0) | 94 (41.0) | |
>5 mm | 18 (24.0) | 135 (59.0) | |
D-CTP | <0.001 | ||
≤10 mm | 58 (77.3) | 108 (47.2) | |
>10 mm | 17 (22.7) | 121 (52.8) | |
Attaching to pleura* | 25 (33.3) | 42 (18.3) | 0.007 |
Locally | 18 (72.0) | 30 (71.4) | 0.96 |
Totally | 7 (28.0) | 12 (28.6) | |
Pleural indentation sign | 8 (10.7) | 32 (14.0) | 0.462 |
Intrathoracic lymph node enlargement | 2 (2.7) | 10 (4.4) | 0.753 |
Follow-up | 24 (32) | 57 (24.9) | |
Increase in size | 3 (12.5) | 13 (22.8) | 0.448 |
Data are expressed as number (percentage) or mean ± standard deviation. *, this indicator is only evaluated in some of the patients. CT, computed tomography; BAs, bronchiolar adenomas; PLCs, peripheral lung cancers; SN, solid nodule; PSN, part-solid nodule; pGGN, pure ground glass nodule; HU, Hounsfield unit; D-ETP, distance from lesion edge to pleura; D-CTP, distance from lesion center to pleura.
Logistic regression analysis for BAs and PLCs
Table 4 shows the clinical and CT characteristics that were shown to independently discriminate BAs from PLCs via binary logistic regression analysis. Compared with PLCs, distributing in the basal segment of lower lobe, irregular shape, central vessel sign with pulmonary artery, peripheral vessel sign with pulmonary vein, and D-ETP ≤5 mm were found to be significantly independent indicators of BAs (Figure 5). The sensitivity, specificity, and the area under the curve (AUC) of this model in diagnosing BAs were 88.0%, 86.03%, and 0.935 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.901–0.960] (P<0.001), respectively (Figure 6).
Table 4
Multivariate logistic regression for predicting BAs
Variables | Odds ratio (95% CI) | P value |
---|---|---|
Distribution in basal segment | <0.001 | |
No | 1 | |
Yes | 17.835 (6.977–45.588) | |
Shape | 0.001 | |
Regular | 1 | |
Irregular | 4.765 (1.877–12.099) | |
Negative of spiculation sign | 0.002 | |
No | 1 | |
Yes | 7.436 (2.063–26.809) | |
Central vessel sign (pulmonary artery) | 0.003 | |
No | 1 | |
Yes | 3.576 (1.557–8.211) | |
Peripheral vessel sign (pulmonary vein) | <0.001 | |
No | 1 | |
Yes | 12.444 (4.934–31.383) | |
D-ETP | <0.001 | |
>5 mm | 1 | |
≤5 mm | 5.535 (2.346–13.057) |
BAs, bronchiolar adenomas; CI, confidence interval; D-ETP, distance from lesion edge to pleura.
Figure 5 A 31-year-old female with BA. (A,B) A round and well-defined part-solid nodule with a diameter of 6.1 mm locates in the lateral basal segment of right lower lobe on axial TSCT image. Its D-CTP is 7.6 mm. Central vessel sign (a pulmonary artery, arrow) (A) and peripheral vessel sign (a pulmonary vein, arrow) (B) are positive. (C) An MIP image shows the central vessel sign and peripheral vessel sign. BA, bronchiolar adenoma; TSCT, thin-section computed tomography; D-CTP, distance from lesion center to pleura; MIP, maximum intensity projection.
Figure 6 Receiver operating characteristic curve of the BAs predictive model established by the independent clinical and CT characteristics. AUC, area under the curve; BAs, bronchiolar adenomas; CT, computed tomography.
DiscussionOther Section
Following their proposal, BAs have gradually received attention in recent years, with more research on the pathology but relatively few radiological comparative studies on large samples. In view of the similarity of BAs and PLCs on CT images, further study regarding their differential diagnosis is needed. This study collected a relatively large number of BAs and compared them with common PLCs. It was found that the BAs and PLCs had many significant differences in TSCT features. Compared with PLCs, BAs usually presented some unique characteristics. They were frequently located in the basal segments of lower lobes, and usually had an irregular shape, central vessel sign with pulmonary artery, peripheral vessel sign with pulmonary vein, and a short D-ETP (≤5 mm). These distinct features are helpful for describing the characteristics of BAs and differentiating them from PLCs.
The BAs were relatively more often found in female patients, there could be more than 1/multiple in one individual, and they showed occasional coexistence with lung cancers, as reported in previous studies (2,15). The present findings are consistent with those of previous reports. These characteristics of BAs are similar to those of PLCs, especially the neoplastic GGNs (23,24). In this study, clinical symptoms were all less common in patients with BAs and PLCs, which was inconsistent with previous findings (2,3,5), which may be related to the small diameter of the lesions. Besides the clinical symptoms, patients with BAs and those with PLCs displayed a high degree of consistency in clinical characteristics. Therefore, we concluded that the clinical indicators have limited significance in telling them apart.
On CT images, both BAs and PLCs can manifest as pGGNs, PSNs, or SNs, which contributes to the challenge of distinguishing between them. In this study, BAs were more frequently observed in the lower lobes, particularly in the basal segments, whereas PLCs were more commonly located in the upper lobes. This distribution pattern aligns with findings from previous studies (2-5,25,26). Furthermore, BAs were more likely to present with irregular shapes, whereas typical signs of lung cancer such as lobulation and spiculation were rarely observed in them. These distinctions imply that smaller irregular nodules lacking the typical features of PLCs and located in the basal segments are more likely to be BAs. However, the vacuolar sign, as a common sign of lung cancers, was more common in BAs in this study, which is consistent with previous research (3). Actually, the vacuole sign represents spared parenchyma, normal or ecstatic bronchi, or focal emphysema; its occurrence in BAs may be related to the structural abnormalities caused by slow growth in benign lesions.
In addition to the traditional morphological features on CT images, this study also identified new indicators that were effective for differentiating BAs and PLCs. It was revealed that BAs tended to have shorter D-ETP and D-CTP compared to PLCs. This indicated that BAs are typically located closer to pleura, which may be relevant to their origin. Pathologically, BAs originate from the epithelium of the bronchioles, which are densely distributed in the sub-pleural zone. Furthermore, the presence of central vessel sign was more commonly observed in BAs than in PLCs, and pulmonary arteries were more prevalent in BAs. Similarly, peripheral vessel sign was more frequently detected in BAs than in PLCs, with pulmonary veins being the primary type of vessels in BAs. This observation could be attributed to the fact that bronchioles often accompany pulmonary arteries, whereas pulmonary veins typically run within interlobular septa. Therefore, the location and type of connected vessels can serve as important clues for distinguishing between BAs and PLCs.
Intrapulmonary lymph nodes (IPLNs) are benign lesions that are frequently detected as incidental findings on high-resolution chest CT scans. Typical CT characteristics of IPLNs include a noncalcified solitary nodule with well-defined margins, a round, oval, or polygonal shape, located within 15 mm of the pleura, and often positioned below the carina level (27), resembling some features seen in BAs. When distinguishing between BAs and IPLNs becomes challenging, an irregular shape and the presence of central or peripheral vessel signs can be crucial in making a differential diagnosis.
Despite an increasing number of reported cases of malignant transformation of BAs in recent years (2,8,28-33), there is still no consensus on their benign and malignant characteristics. However, to date, there have been no reports of recurrence or metastasis following treatment, regardless of the surgical method employed. Lymph node enlargement is typically attributed to the invasion or spread of either inflammatory cells or tumor cells (34). In this study, only 2 BA patients exhibited intrathoracic lymph node enlargement. Its incidence rate was similar to that in PLCs, which may be related to the fact that a majority of the enrolled PLCs were MIA (38.0%) and AIS (25.3%). Nevertheless, when a peripheral pulmonary nodule presents with intrathoracic lymph node enlargement, the possibility of lung cancer should be considered as a primary concern because it more commonly presents with lymph node metastasis.
This study had 3 limitations. Firstly, although our sample size of BAs from 2 centers was the largest among relevant studies, it was still relatively small considering the diversity of BAs. The differences between BAs and PLCs revealed in this study should be verified in clinical practice. Secondly, the comparison in this study was limited to BAs and PLCs, and potential differences between BAs and other benign nodules remain unknown. Lastly, certain indicators on CT images, such as central vessel sign with pulmonary artery and peripheral vessel sign with pulmonary vein, were newly defined in this study. Therefore, their efficacy in differential diagnosis requires further validation in clinical practice.
ConclusionsOther Section
BA is a type of pulmonary nodules that is gradually being recognized. As a special kind of peripheral pulmonary nodule, it frequently needs to be differentiated from PLCs. Compared with PLCs, BAs usually present some unique characteristics. Any type of peripheral pulmonary nodules located in basal segments of lower lobes with irregular shape, central vessel sign with pulmonary artery, peripheral vessel sign with pulmonary vein, and D-ETP ≤5 mm, but lacking spiculation sign, should be highly suspected of BAs. Follow-up may be the preferred approach for further management.
AcknowledgmentsOther Section
Funding: This work was supported by
FootnoteOther Section
Reporting Checklist: The authors have completed the STROBE reporting checklist. Available at https://qims.amegroups.com/article/view/10.21037/qims-24-687/rc
Conflicts of Interest: All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form (available at https://qims.amegroups.com/article/view/10.21037/qims-24-687/coif). The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.
Ethical Statement: The authors are accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved. The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki (as revised in 2013). This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of The First Affiliated Hospital of Chongqing Medical University (No. 2019-062) and The Second Affiliated Hospital of Army Medical University (No. 2020-research147-01). Due to the retrospective nature of this study, the requirement for informed consent was waived.
Open Access Statement: This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0), which permits the non-commercial replication and distribution of the article with the strict proviso that no changes or edits are made and the original work is properly cited (including links to both the formal publication through the relevant DOI and the license). See: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/.
ReferencesOther Section
Nicholson AG, Tsao MS, Beasley MB, Borczuk AC, Brambilla E, Cooper WA, Dacic S, Jain D, Kerr KM, Lantuejoul S, Noguchi M, Papotti M, Rekhtman N, Scagliotti G, van Schil P, Sholl L, Yatabe Y, Yoshida A, Travis WD. The 2021 WHO Classification of Lung Tumors: Impact of Advances Since 2015. J Thorac Oncol 2022;17:362-87. [Crossref] [PubMed]
Sun J, Zhao W, Zhang C, Zheng E, Jiang X, Wang L, Hayashi T, Sasaki E, Tachibana M, Zhao G. Multiple bronchiolar adenomas/ciliated muconodular papillary tumors of the bilateral lung with tumor budding and potential malignant transformation into squamous cell carcinoma: a case report and literature review. Transl Lung Cancer Res 2023;12:1611-24. [Crossref] [PubMed]
Cao L, Wang Z, Gong T, Wang J, Liu J, Jin L, Yuan Q. Discriminating between bronchiolar adenoma, adenocarcinoma in situ and minimally invasive adenocarcinoma of the lung with CT. Diagn Interv Imaging 2020;101:831-7. [Crossref] [PubMed]
Onishi Y, Kusumoto M, Motoi N, Watanabe H, Watanabe SI. Ciliated Muconodular Papillary Tumor of the Lung: Thin-Section CT Findings of 16 Cases. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2020;214:761-5. [Crossref] [PubMed]
Sun J, Liu K, Tong H, Liu H, Li X, Luo Y, Li Y, Yao Y, Jin R, Fang J, Chen X. CT Texture Analysis for Differentiating Bronchiolar Adenoma, Adenocarcinoma In Situ, and Minimally Invasive Adenocarcinoma of the Lung. Front Oncol 2021;11:634564. [Crossref] [PubMed]
Si MJ, Tao XF, Du GY, Cai LL, Han HX, Liang XZ, Zhao JM. Thin-section computed tomography-histopathologic comparisons of pulmonary focal interstitial fibrosis, atypical adenomatous hyperplasia, adenocarcinoma in situ, and minimally invasive adenocarcinoma with pure ground-glass opacity. Eur J Radiol 2016;85:1708-15. [Crossref] [PubMed]
Sun Y, Liu M, Jiang Z, Li B. Bronchiolar adenoma with diffuse pulmonary nodules: a extremely rare case report and review of literature. BMC Pulm Med 2020;20:192. [Crossref] [PubMed]
Zhao L, Willson CM, Givens NT, Zhu Z, Wakefield MR, Wang Y, Yang W, Fang Y. A rare case of ciliated muconodular papillary tumor accompanied with adenocarcinoma in situ. BMC Pulm Med 2021;21:223. [Crossref] [PubMed]
Maroongroge S, Weissferdt A, Buszek S, Rice DC, Smith BD, Gandhi SJ. Management of Bronchial Adenoma/Ciliated Muconodular Papillary Tumor with Definitive Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy (SBRT): A Case Report. Clin Lung Cancer 2022;23:e335-8. [Crossref] [PubMed]
Merritt RE, Shrager JB. Indications for surgery in patients with localized pulmonary infection. Thorac Surg Clin 2012;22:325-32. [Crossref] [PubMed]
Ozeki N, Iwano S, Taniguchi T, Kawaguchi K, Fukui T, Ishiguro F, Fukumoto K, Nakamura S, Hirakawa A, Yokoi K. Therapeutic surgery without a definitive diagnosis can be an option in selected patients with suspected lung cancer. Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg 2014;19:830-7. [Crossref] [PubMed]
Chu HH, Park SY, Cha EJ. Ciliated muconodular papillary tumor of the lung: The risk of false-positive diagnosis in frozen section. Human Pathology: Case Reports 2017;7:8-10.
Willner J, Moreira AL. Squamous overgrowth and metaplasia: an expanded spectrum of bronchiolar adenomas. Histopathology 2023;83:166-7. [Crossref] [PubMed]
Shirsat H, Zhou F, Chang JC, Rekhtman N, Saqi A, Argyropoulos K, Azour L, Simms A, Melamed J, Hung YP, Roden AC, Mino-Kenudson M, Moreira AL, Narula N. Bronchiolar Adenoma/Pulmonary Ciliated Muconodular Papillary Tumor. Am J Clin Pathol 2021;155:832-44. [Crossref] [PubMed]
Ding B, Shang Z, Xiang Z, Han Y. Clinicopathologic Features and Frozen Diagnostic Pitfalls of Bronchiolar Adenoma/Ciliated Muconodular Papillary Tumors (BA/CMPTs). Am J Surg Pathol 2023;47:431-9. [Crossref] [PubMed]
Guo Y, Shi Y, Tong J. Bronchiolar adenoma: A challenging diagnosis based on frozen sections. Pathol Int 2020;70:186-8. [Crossref] [PubMed]
Hansell DM, Bankier AA, MacMahon H, McLoud TC, Müller NL, Remy J. Fleischner Society: glossary of terms for thoracic imaging. Radiology 2008;246:697-722. [Crossref] [PubMed]
Xu DM, van Klaveren RJ, de Bock GH, Leusveld A, Zhao Y, Wang Y, Vliegenthart R, de Koning HJ, Scholten ET, Verschakelen J, Prokop M, Oudkerk M. Limited value of shape, margin and CT density in the discrimination between benign and malignant screen detected solid pulmonary nodules of the NELSON trial. Eur J Radiol 2008;68:347-52. [Crossref] [PubMed]
Li WJ, Lv FJ, Tan YW, Fu BJ, Chu ZG. Benign and malignant pulmonary part-solid nodules: differentiation via thin-section computed tomography. Quant Imaging Med Surg 2022;12:699-710. [Crossref] [PubMed]
Fan L, Liu SY, Li QC, Yu H, Xiao XS. Pulmonary malignant focal ground-glass opacity nodules and solid nodules of 3cm or less: comparison of multi-detector CT features. J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol 2011;55:279-85. [Crossref] [PubMed]
Xiang W, Xing Y, Jiang S, Chen G, Mao H, Labh K, Jia X, Sun X. Morphological factors differentiating between early lung adenocarcinomas appearing as pure ground-glass nodules measuring ≤10 mm on thin-section computed tomography. Cancer Imaging 2014;14:33. [Crossref] [PubMed]
Shi W, Zhou L, Peng X, Ren H, Wang Q, Shan F, Zhang Z, Liu L, Shi Y. HIV-infected patients with opportunistic pulmonary infections misdiagnosed as lung cancers: the clinicoradiologic features and initial application of CT radiomics. J Thorac Dis 2019;11:2274-86. [Crossref] [PubMed]
Seow WJ, Matsuo K, Hsiung CA, Shiraishi K, Song M, Kim HN, et al. Association between GWAS-identified lung adenocarcinoma susceptibility loci and EGFR mutations in never-smoking Asian women, and comparison with findings from Western populations. Hum Mol Genet 2017;26:454-65. [PubMed]
Sato Y, Fujimoto D, Morimoto T, Uehara K, Nagata K, Sakanoue I, Hamakawa H, Takahashi Y, Imai Y, Tomii K. Natural history and clinical characteristics of multiple pulmonary nodules with ground glass opacity. Respirology 2017;22:1615-21. [Crossref] [PubMed]
Lin RY, Lv FJ, Fu BJ, Li WJ, Liang ZR, Chu ZG. Features for Predicting Absorbable Pulmonary Solid Nodules as Depicted on Thin-Section Computed Tomography. J Inflamm Res 2021;14:2933-9. [Crossref] [PubMed]
Ren Z, Ding H, Cai Z, Mu Y, Wang L, Pan S. Development and validation of a prediction model for malignant pulmonary nodules: A cohort study. Medicine (Baltimore) 2021;100:e28110. [Crossref] [PubMed]
Schreuder A, Jacobs C, Scholten ET, van Ginneken B, Schaefer-Prokop CM, Prokop M, Typical CT. Features of Intrapulmonary Lymph Nodes: A Review. Radiol Cardiothorac Imaging 2020;2:e190159. [Crossref] [PubMed]
Lau KW, Aubry MC, Tan GS, Lim CH, Takano AM. Ciliated muconodular papillary tumor: a solitary peripheral lung nodule in a teenage girl. Hum Pathol 2016;49:22-6. [Crossref] [PubMed]
Udo E, Furusato B, Sakai K, Prentice LM, Tanaka T, Kitamura Y, Tsuchiya T, Yamasaki N, Nagayasu T, Nishio K, Fukuoka J. Ciliated muconodular papillary tumors of the lung with KRAS/BRAF/AKT1 mutation. Diagn Pathol 2017;12:62. [Crossref] [PubMed]
Miyai K, Takeo H, Nakayama T, Obara K, Aida S, Sato K, Matsukuma S. Invasive form of ciliated muconodular papillary tumor of the lung: A case report and review of the literature. Pathol Int 2018;68:530-5. [Crossref] [PubMed]
Han X, Hao J, Ding S, Wang EH, Wang L. Bronchiolar Adenoma Transforming to Invasive Mucinous Adenocarcinoma: A Case Report. Onco Targets Ther 2021;14:2241-6. [Crossref] [PubMed]
Chen F, Ren F, Zhao H, Xu X, Chen J. Mucinous adenocarcinoma caused by cancerization from a ciliated multinodular papilloma tumor: A case report. Thorac Cancer 2021;12:1629-33. [Crossref] [PubMed]
Li X, Wu Y, Hui D, Luo X, Wu W, Zhang J, Chen H. Multiple bronchiolar adenomas with malignant transformation and CCNE1 mutation: a case report and literature review. J Cardiothorac Surg 2021;16:307. [Crossref] [PubMed]
Bazemore AW, Smucker DR. Lymphadenopathy and malignancy. Am Fam Physician 2002;66:2103-10. [PubMed]
Cite this article as: Tao Y, Xiong TW, Li QS, Yang SH, Lv FJ, Chu ZG. Discriminating bronchiolar adenoma from peripheral lung cancer by thin-section computed tomography (CT): a 2-center study. Quant Imaging Med Surg 2024;14(10):7086-7097. doi: 10.21037/qims-24-687
感谢QIMS杂志授权转载!
原文链接:
https://qims.amegroups.org/article/view/127792/html
About the Journal
Quantitative Imaging in Medicine and Surgery
Aims and Scope
Quantitative Imaging in Medicine and Surgery (QIMS, Quant Imaging Med Surg, Print ISSN 2223-4292; Online ISSN 2223-4306) publishes peer-reviewed original reports and reviews in medical imaging, including X-ray, ultrasound, computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging and spectroscopy, nuclear medicine and related modalities, and their application in medicine and surgery. While focus is on clinical investigations, papers on medical physics, image processing, or biological studies which have apparent clinical relevance are also published. This journal encourages authors to look at the medical images from a quantitative angle. This journal also publishes important topics on imaging-based epidemiology, and debates on research methodology, medical ethics, and medical training. Descriptive radiological studies of high clinical importance are published as well.
QIMS is an open-access, international peer-reviewed journal, published by AME Publishing Company. It is published quarterly (Dec. 2011- Dec. 2012), bimonthly (Feb. 2013 - Feb 2018), monthly (Mar. 2018 - ) and openly distributed worldwide.
QIMS is indexed in PubMed/PubMed Central, Scopus, Web of Science [Science Citation Index Expanded (SCIE)]. The latest impact factor is: 2.9.
Indexing
Quantitative Imaging in Medicine and Surgery is indexed and covered by
Web of Science [Science Citation Index Expanded (SCIE)]
PubMed
PubMed Central (PMC)
Google Scholar
Scopus
Information for Authors
QIMS is a member of Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and it follows the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)'s guidelines and the ICMJE recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing, and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journal.
Manuscripts submitted must be the original work of the author(s) and must not be published previously or under consideration for publication elsewhere.
Manuscripts Turnaround Time
First Editorial Decision: 3-5 days
Peer review: 1-2 months
Revision time: 2-4 weeks
Publication Ahead of Print: within 1 month after being accepted
Formal publication: within 1-3 months after being accepted. Original Articles are listed as priority.
QIMS’s position on case reports and review articles.
QIMS welcomes case reports where quantitative imaging played a role for diagnosis and/or treatment; also welcome first time realization (in animals or in human subjects) of a new imaging technique. These case reports are usually written a concise and short letter format (see <https://qims.amegroups.com/>) for example. Case reports of particular clinical importance are also published in a longer format; for these cases we expect important pathophysiological, diagnostic, therapeutic implications. We do not publish case report only because of the rarity of the cases. Note, although we believer reporting case materials is important for the advancement of medicine. The space reserved for case report remains limited for each issue. The decision to publish or not publish a case material submission can sometimes depend on the available space of the journal.
QIMS welcomes reviews and comments on published papers. Review papers should contain authors’ analytical appraisal of published papers and personal viewpoints, instead of a mere aggregation of published abstracts.
We expect review papers are in three forms, 1) expert reviews, usually published in editorial format, provide authors’ own insights and perspective; 2) systematic review; 3) educational reviews, including pictorial reviews. Systematic reviews (maybe narrative in writing but critical in nature) are particularly welcomed.
Publication Schedule
Published quarterly from Dec. 2011 to Dec. 2012 and bimonthly from Feb. 2013 to Feb 2018, QIMS now follows a monthly publication model.
Open Access Statement
This journal is a peer reviewed, open access journal. All content of the journal is published under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0). All articles published open access will be immediately and permanently free for all to read, download, copy and distribute as defined by the applied license.
Free access and usage
Permitted third party reuse is defined by the CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 license. This license allows users to copy and distribute the article, provided:
this is not done for commercial purposes and further does not permit distribution of the Article if it is changed or edited in any way.
the user gives appropriate credit (with a link to the formal publication through the relevant DOI) and provides a link to the license but not in an any way implying that the licensor is endorsing the user or the use of the work.
no derivatives including remix, transform, or build upon the material was allowed for distribution.
The full details of the license are available at https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
Copyright
For open access publishing, this journal uses an exclusive licensing agreement. Authors will transfer copyright to QIMS, but will have the right to share their article in the same way permitted to third parties under the relevant user license, as well as certain scholarly usage rights.
For any inquiry/special circumstance on the copyright, commercial usage or adaptation of QIMS articles, please contact: permissions@amegroups.com
For reprint order, please contact: sales@amegroups.com
Support for Authors to Comply with Funding Body Mandates
We work with authors of research articles supported by funding bodies with open access mandates to ensure that authors can meet their funders’ requirements for public access to research results.
In addition, we offer further support for authors who are required to comply with funding body mandates, including but not limited to:
All articles published open access will be immediately and permanently free for everyone to read, download, copy and distribute. If a specific open access license is needed, please contact the editorial office for confirmation before submission. Example of statements in a published article: https://jgo.amegroups.org/article/view/76355/html.
No copyright is claimed for any work of the U.S. government. Example of statements in published articles: https://actr.amegroups.org/article/view/8875; https://med.amegroups.org/article/view/8358/html.
Editorial Office
Email: qims@amepc.org
Publisher Information
QIMS is published by AME Publishing Company.
Addresses:
Hong Kong branch office: Flat/RM C 16F, Kings Wing Plaza 1, NO. 3 on Kwan Street, Shatin, NT, Hong Kong, China.
Singapore branch office: Pico Creative Centre, 20 Kallang Ave #03-08, 339411 Singapore, Singapore.
Updated on July 19, 2024
感谢QIMS授权转载!
观点:王毅翔等——新冠肺炎CT检查的临床意义未定,尽可能避免,武汉/湖北除外!
SCI之窗(005)—杜二珠、王毅翔等:调整X 线焦点投照位置以提高正位胸片对椎体骨质疏松性压缩变形的检出率
王毅翔 等:肝脏弥散加权磁共振ADC及IVIM定量 : 现有的困难及部分解决方法
SCI之窗(006)—王毅翔等:老年华人女性骨质疏松性椎体压缩性骨折的发病率及严重程度远低于欧美人群
SCI之窗(011):对东亚男女性老年人修正1994WHO T-值定义骨质疏松的阈值以使其与东亚人群终生脆性骨折的风险一致
QIMS之窗(006):18F-FDG-PET/CT 在结核病诊断及疗效评估中的价值
QIMS之窗(007):腹壁肿瘤及肿瘤样病变的CT及MRI表现
QIMS之窗(008):结合非强化磁共振血管造影、血流定量及灌注成像评估将发生的再次中风
QIMS之窗(009):颅内动脉瘤的神经影像学:考虑瘤体大小以外的解剖及血流动力学因素
QIMS之窗(010):髓鞘脂的UTE (超短回波时间) 磁共振成像:技术发展及挑战
QIMS之窗(011):新冠患者CT测量得到的肺血管指数及临床预后间的关系
QIMS之窗 (012): 双能CT肺血管造影显示新冠肺炎的微血管病变
QIMS之窗 (013): 胸部平片用于严重新冠病的临床价值
QIMS之窗 (014): 活动性肺结核的几种不典型CT表现及机制
QIMS之窗 (015): 类风湿关节炎患者高分辨率外周定量CT评估掌指关节3维关节间隙宽度的共识方法
QIMS之窗 (016): 骨质疏松症的影像学及骨密度诊断: 中国专家共识(英文版)
QIMS之窗 (017): 新冠肺炎的一种新CT征象: 拱形桥征
QIMS之窗 (018): 老年男性X线骨质疏松性椎体骨折综述:聚焦于男女性别间差异
QIMS之窗 (022): 双能CT区分甲状腺乳头状癌患者小于0.5 cm的转移性和非转移性淋巴结
QIMS之窗 (023): 正位胸片及腹部正位平片上识别骨质疏松性椎体压缩变形: 图文综述
QIMS之窗 (024): 基于人工智能的血管抑制技术应用于肺癌筛查中半实性小结节检测
QIMS之窗 (026): 磁共振成像显示前胫腓韧带损伤与踝关节状态及其肌腱、韧带的关系
QIMS之窗 (027): 腹主动脉瘤的CT测量:非标准化测量的临床后果及多平面重建的重要性
QIMS之窗 (028): 人工智能辅助诊断减少急诊全身CT的胸部病变漏诊
QIMS之窗 (029): 性别各异的肝脏衰老过程与磁共振成像
QIMS之窗 (030): 今天的放射科医生遇到明天的人工智能: 许诺、陷阱和无限的潜力
QIMS之窗 (032): 通过多模态融合成像三维定量评估心肌梗死: 方法学、验证和初步临床应用
QIMS之窗 (033): 门脉高压的侧枝循环:解剖及临床相关性
QIMS之窗 (034):医学图像分析应用中计算机视觉和人工智能的新进展
QIMS之窗 (035):大动脉壁的应力分布对动脉粥样硬化的影响
QIMS之窗 (036): 人工智能计算机辅助诊断系统评估肺癌、转移瘤和良性病变的预测准确性
QIMS之窗 (037):4D 血流 MRI 在心血管疾病的临床应用:现状和未来展望
QIMS之窗 (038): 含碘造影剂的交叉反应:我们需要关注吗?
QIMS之窗 (039): 全脑分析显示正常中青年深部灰质和大脑皮层年龄相关性磁敏感率变化
QIMS之窗 (040): 颈动脉支架术治疗后新发缺血性脑病灶与颈动脉钙化环壁分布程度相关
QIMS之窗 (041): 先进脑磁共振技术转化为临床实践:多模态磁共振在传统临床条件下区分痴呆亚型
QIMS之窗 (042): 3,557 名感染 COVID-19 儿童的CT扫描表现: 系统性综述
QIMS之窗 (043): 肩关节不稳影像学图文综述QIMS之窗 (044): 多排计算机断层扫描评估肝门部胆管癌血管受累
QIMS之窗 (045): 多发性骨髓瘤患者肿瘤负荷的全身磁共振成像定量评估: 与预后生物标志物的相关性
QIMS之窗 (046): 虚拟或真实: 肾上腺肿瘤的活体样电影模式重建
QIMS之窗 (047): 血池和肝脏PET 标准化摄取值的年龄相关变化: 对 2526 名患者长达十年的回顾性研究结果
QIMS之窗 (048): 辨认骨质疏松性椎体终板及皮质骨折: 图文综述
QIMS之窗 (049): 经皮冠状动脉介入治疗后有症状患者心肌灌注受损的临床和影像预测因素:动态CT心肌灌注成像的表现
QIMS之窗 (050): 定量磁共振 神经成像用于评估周围神经和神经丛损伤: 图文综述
QIMS之窗 (051): 儿童颈部良恶性肿块的影像学诊断: 图文综述
QIMS之窗 (052): CT肺结节半自动分割 的常规方法和深度学习方法的比较评估
QIMS之窗 (053): 通过ICC评估放射组学特征的可靠性: 系统性综述
QIMS之窗 (054): 550 例小儿脑肿瘤定性 MRI 的诊断准确性:评估计算时代的临床实践
QIMS之窗 (055): 年龄和吸烟对中国健康男性肺血管容积的影响 : 低剂量CT定量测量
QIMS之窗 (056): 通过薄层CT扫描区分肺部部分实性结节的良恶性
QIMS之窗 (057): 不同阶段高血压患者脑白质变化、高血压病程、年龄与脑微出血有关
QIMS之窗 (058): 乳动脉钙化作为动脉粥样硬化性心血管疾病的指标:冠状动脉CT评分系统和颈动脉内中膜厚度的比较分析
QIMS之窗 (059): 老年华人骨质疏松性骨折的发生率不到欧美人群的一半
QIMS之窗 (060): 基于简化时序方案的黑血延时钆增强心脏磁共振成像用于心肌瘢痕检测:检查怀疑冠状动脉疾病患者的单中心经验
QIMS之窗 (061): 弥漫性肝病的 CT 和 MR: 多参数预测建模算法帮助肝实质分类
QIMS之窗 (062): 心脏磁共振评价川崎病患儿心肌综合收缩力: 大型单中心研究
QIMS之窗 (063): 胸腰脊柱骨折的分类: 定量影像学的作用
QIMS之窗 (064): 不规则骨及扁平骨的骨肉瘤: 112例患者的临床及影像学特征
QIMS之窗 (065): “华人脊椎更健康”: MrOS (Hong Kong)和 MsOS(Hong Kong) 研究进展
QIMS之窗 (066): 低球管电压方案CT平描无创诊断肝脂肪
QIMS之窗 (067): 全身磁共振成像在成人淋巴瘤患者分期中的诊断性能—系统综述和荟萃分析
QIMS之窗 (069): 使用放射组学和组合机器学习对帕金森病进展进行纵向聚类分析和预测
QIMS之窗 (070): 直肠内超声和MRI使用直肠系膜浸润深度5mm为截止点对T3直肠癌进行术前亚分类的一致性和存活的意义
QIMS之窗 (071): 肺结节的体积分析:减少基于直径的体积计算和体素计数方法之间的差异
QIMS之窗 (072):深度学习图像重建可降低射线剂量成像的同时保持图像质量:增强腹部CT扫描深度学习重建与混合迭代重建的比较
QIMS之窗 (073): 严重钙化冠状动脉中隐藏的不稳定的斑块
QIMS之窗 (074): 放射组学和混合机器学习对帕金森病进展的纵向聚类分析和预测
QIMS之窗 (075): 冠状动脉慢性完全闭塞病人心血管磁共振成像随访应力分析和晚期钆增强的量化
QIMS之窗 (076): 平扫光谱CT有效原子序数图识别无钙化动脉粥样硬化斑块的临床可行性初步研究
QIMS之窗 (077): 7T磁共振神经影像学: 图文综述QIMS之窗 (078): MRI特征区分结直肠肝转移瘤的组织病理学生长模式
QIMS之窗 (079): 弱监督学习使用弥散加权成像检出急性缺血性中风和出血性梗塞病变的能力
QIMS之窗 (080): 无造影强化光谱CT有效原子序数图识别无钙化动脉粥样硬化斑块:临床可行性初步研究
QIMS之窗 (081): ImageJ定量测量超微血管成像与造影增强超声定量测量对于肝脏转移瘤检查的比较: 初步研究结果
QIMS之窗 (082): 剪切波弹性成像显示: 无论先前抗病毒治疗如何, 慢性戊型肝炎患者肝组织硬度均升高
QIMS之窗 (083): 磁共振与CT在脊柱骨病变中的价值
QIMS之窗 (084): 一种简化评分方案以提高MRI乳房成像报告/数据系统的诊断准确性
QIMS之窗 (085): 晚年抑郁症进展与 MRI 定量磁敏感性测量脑铁沉积的变化
QIMS之窗 (086): 吸烟通过调节黑质纹状体通路中铁沉积与临床症状之间的相互作用对帕金森病起到保护作用
QIMS之窗 (087): 急性肺栓塞后血栓栓塞持续存在的临床和影像学危险因素
QIMS之窗 (088): 在老年女性侧位胸片上自动检出椎体压缩性骨折的软件: Ofeye 1.0
QIMS之窗 (089): 脑血流与脑白质高信号进展之间的关联:一项基于社区成年人的纵向队列研究
QIMS之窗 (090): 基于骨密度诊断老年华人骨质疏松症发病率和定义骨质疏松症的临界T值
QIMS之窗 (091): 臂丛神经磁共振束成像: 循序渐进的步骤
QIMS之窗 (092): 造血病患者通过磁共振模块化报告评估骨髓
QIMS之窗 (093): 使用无造影剂和无触发的弛豫增强血管造影 (REACT) 评估急性缺血性中风的近端颈内动脉狭窄
QIMS之窗 (094): 用于预测自发性脑出血后不良预后和 30 天死亡率的临床-放射组学列线图
QIMS之窗 (095): 深度学习在超声成像识别乳腺导管原位癌和微浸润中的应用
QIMS之窗 (096): 磁共振灌注成像区分胶质瘤复发与假性恶化:系统性综述、荟萃分析及荟萃回归
QIMS之窗 (097): 锥形束 CT 引导微波消融治疗肝穹窿下肝细胞癌:回顾性病例对照研究
QIMS之窗 (098): 阿尔茨海默病患者皮质铁积累与认知和脑萎缩的关系
QIMS之窗 (099): 放射组学机器学习模型使用多样性的MRI数据集检出有临床意义前列腺癌的性能不均一性
QIMS之窗 (100): 一种机器学习方法结合多个磁共振弥散散模型来区分低级别和高级别成人胶质瘤
QIMS之窗 (101): MRPD脂肪分数 (MRI-PDFF)、MRS 和两种组织病理学方法(AI与病理医生)量化脂肪肝
QIMS之窗 (102): 占位性心脏病患者的诊断和生存分析:一项为期10年的单中心回顾性研究
QIMS之窗 (103): Ferumoxytol增强4DMR多相稳态成像在先心病中的应用:2D和3D软件平台评估心室容积和功能
QIMS之窗 (104): 磁共振弹性成像对肝细胞癌肝切除术后肝再生的术前评价
QIMS之窗 (105): 使用定量时间-强度曲线比较炎症性甲状腺结节和甲状腺乳头状癌的超声造影特征:倾向评分匹配分析
QIMS之窗 (106): 口服泡腾剂改善磁共振胰胆管造影 (MRCP)
QIMS之窗 (107): 钆磁共振成像造影剂引起的弛豫率改变显示阿尔茨海默病患者微血管形态变化
QIMS之窗 (108): 轻链心肌淀粉样变性患者左心室心肌做功指数和短期预后:一项回顾性队列研究
QIMS之窗 (109): 基于MR放射组学的机器学习对高级别胶质瘤患者疾病进展的预测价值
QIMS之窗 (110): 高分辨率T2加权MRI与组织病理学集合分析显示其在食管癌分期中的意义
QIMS之窗 (111): 使用多参数磁共振成像和波谱预测放射治疗后前列腺癌的复发: 评估治疗前成像的预后因素
QIMS之窗 (112):双层能谱探测器CT参数提高肺腺癌分级诊断效率
QIMS之窗 (113): 弥散加权T2图谱在预测头颈部鳞状细胞癌患者组织学肿瘤分级中的应用
QIMS之窗 (114): 老年女性椎体高度下降不到 20% 的骨质疏松样椎体骨折与进一步椎体骨折风险增加有关:18年随访结果
QIMS之窗 (115): 膝关节周围巨细胞瘤和软骨母细胞瘤的影像学:99例回顾性分析
QIMS之窗 (116): 胸部CT显示分枝杆菌感染空洞:临床意义和基于深度学习的量化自动检测
QIMS之窗 (117): 基于人工智能的甲状腺结节筛查自动诊断系统的统计优化策略评估和临床评价
QIMS之窗 (118): 基于四维血流磁共振成像的弯曲大脑中动脉壁切应力的分布和区域变化
QIMS之窗 (119): 我们最近关于老年男性和女性流行性骨质疏松性椎体骨折X线诊断的循证工作总结
QIMS之窗 (120): 许莫氏结节与流行性骨质疏松性椎体骨折和低骨密度有关:一项基于老年男性和女性社区人群的胸椎MRI研究
QIMS之窗 (121): 心肌梗死后射血分数保留的心力衰竭患者: 心肌磁共振(MR)组织追踪研究
QIMS之窗 (122): 使用 人工智能辅助压缩传感心脏黑血 T2 加权成像:患者队列研究
QIMS之窗 (123): 整合式18F-FDG PET/MR全身扫描机局部增强扫描在胰腺腺癌术前分期及可切除性评估中的价值
QIMS之窗 (124): 放射组学预测胶质瘤异柠檬酸 脱氢酶基因突变的多中心研究
QIMS之窗 (125): CT与组织病理学对评估冠状动脉钙化的敏感性和相关性的比较
QIMS之窗 (126): 磁敏感加权成像鉴别良恶性门静脉血栓的价值
QIMS之窗 (127): 乳腺癌的超声诊断深度学习模型:超声与临床因素的整合
QIMS之窗 (128): 钆塞酸增强磁共振成像肝胆期成像的优化:叙述性综述
QIMS之窗 (130): 退行性颈椎病患者检出偶发甲状腺结节:一项回顾性 MRI 研究
QIMS之窗 (131):主要由发育原因引起的许莫氏结节和主要由后天原因引起的许莫氏结节:两个相关但不同的表现
QIMS之窗 (132):肱骨头囊性病变: 磁共振成像图文综述
QIMS之窗 (133):高分辨率小视场弥散加权磁共振成像在宫颈癌诊断中的应用
QIMS之窗 (135):深度学习辅助放射平片对膝关节关节炎分级:多角度X线片与先验知识的作用
QIMS之窗 (136): Angio-CT 影像学生物标志预测肝细胞癌经动脉化疗栓塞的疗效
QIMS之窗 (137):术前低放射剂量CT引导下肺结节定位
QIMS之窗 (138):超声造影在乳腺癌患者前哨淋巴结评估和标测中的应用
QIMS之窗 (140):反转恢复超短回波时间 (IR-UTE) 磁共振对脑白质病变的临床评估
QIMS之窗 (141): 层厚对基于深度学习的冠状动脉钙自动评分软件性能的影响
QIMS之窗 (142):支气管内超声弹性成像鉴别肺门纵隔淋巴结良恶性:回顾性研究
QIMS之窗 (143):高血压和肥胖对左心房时相功能的交互作用:三维超声心动图研究
QIMS之窗 (144):超声造影在乳腺癌患者前哨淋巴结评估和标测中的应用
QIMS之窗 (145):基于K-means层级体素聚类的快速高信噪比CEST量化方法
QIMS之窗 (146):常规临床多排CT扫描自动分割机会性评估椎体骨密度和纹理特征的长期可重复性
QIMS之窗 (147):基于人工智能的CT 扫描特征直方图分析预测毛玻璃结节的侵袭性
QIMS之窗 (148):基于心脏CTA图像与超声心动图的深度监督8层residual U-Net计算左心室射血分数
QIMS之窗 (149): 高度实性成分对早期实性肺腺癌的预后影响
QIMS之窗 (150):只在磁共振发现的可疑乳腺病变: 定量表观弥散系数有额外的临床价值吗 ?
QIMS之窗 (151): 人工智能与放射科医生在CT图像骨折诊断准确性方面的比较: 多维度、多部位分析
QIMS之窗 (152): 超声剪切波速检测人群晚期肝纤维化
QIMS之窗 (153):使用Gd-EOB-DTPA增强MR结合血清标志物在乙肝病毒高危患者中区分肿块型肝内胆管癌和非典型HCC
QIMS之窗 (154):术前超声预测甲状腺癌患者喉返神经侵犯
QIMS之窗 (155): T2 弛豫时间对 MRI 表观扩散系数 (ADC) 量化的影响及其潜在的临床意义
QIMS之窗 (156): 成人血液系统恶性肿瘤的急性病变神经放射学:图文综述
QIMS之窗 (157): 老年休闲运动最常见的15种肌肉骨骼损伤: 图文综述
QIMS之窗 (158): T2弛豫时间与磁共振成像表观弥散系数 (ADC) 之间的三相关系
QIMS之窗 (159): T2弛豫时间在解释肌肉骨骼结构MRI表观弥散系数(ADC)的意义
QIMS之窗 (160): 膝骨关节炎的影像学:多模式诊断方法综述
QIMS之窗 (161): 超高场 7T MRI 在帕金森病中准备用于临床了吗?—叙述性综述
QIMS之窗 (162): 碘造影剂在CT结构化RADS中的作用——叙述性综述
QIMS之窗 (163): 医学图像分割中的Transformers: 叙述性综述
QIMS之窗 (164): 肝癌相对于肝组织的长T2导致常规IVIM成像肝癌灌注分数被低估
QIMS之窗 (165): 基于深度学习的多模态肿瘤分割方法: 叙述性综述
QIMS之窗 (167): 基于双能CT的新型生物标志物用于结直肠癌手术后极早期远处转移的风险分层
QIMS之窗 (168): ST段抬高型心肌梗死患者心肌内出血的心脏磁共振成像检测:磁敏感加权成像与T1/T2像素图技术的比较
QIMS之窗 (169): TW3人工智能骨龄评估系统的验证:一项前瞻性、多中心、确认性研究
QIMS之窗 (170): 开发和验证深度学习模型用于髋关节前后位和侧位X线片检测无移位的股骨颈骨折
QIMS之窗 (171): 开滦研究中眼球血管宽度与认知能力下降和脑小血管病负担的关系
QIMS之窗 (172): 终板炎性矮椎(Endplatitis short vertebrae)
QIMS之窗 (173): DDVD像素图的潜在广泛临床应用
QIMS之窗 (174): 弥散性甲状腺病变中超声低回声特点及原理
QIMS之窗 (175): 不同发育状态及成长时期儿童青少年的手部骨骼特征
QIMS之窗 (176): 不同肌肉测量技术在诊断肌肉减少症中的一致性:系统性综述及荟萃分析
QIMS之窗 (177): 用于冠状动脉狭窄功能评估的冠状动脉树描述和病变评估 (CatLet) 评分:与压力线FFR的比较
QIMS之窗 (178): 使用 Sonazoid 的CEUS LI-RADS诊断肝细胞癌的效果:系统评价和荟萃分析
QIMS之窗 (179): 更多证据支持东亚老年女性骨质疏松症QCT腰椎BMD诊断临界点值应该低于欧裔人
QIMS之窗 (180): 相对于无肿瘤直肠壁,直肠癌的血液灌注更高:通过一种新的影像学生物标志物DDVD进行量化
QIMS之窗 (181): 人工智能在超声图像上解释甲状腺结节的诊断性能:一项多中心回顾性研究
QIMS之窗 (182): 先天许莫氏结节有软骨终板完全覆盖及其在许莫氏结节基于病因学分类的意义
QIMS之窗 (183): 合成磁共振成像在预测乳腺癌前哨淋巴结的额外价值
QIMS之窗 (184): 通过体积倍增时间预测早期肺腺癌生长导致分期改变
QIMS之窗 (185): 对比增强盆腔MRI用于预测粘液性直肠癌的治疗反应
QIMS之窗 (186): 探讨骨质疏松症和骨折风险中椎旁肌肉与骨骼健康之间的相互作用:CT和MRI研究全面文献综述
QIMS之窗 (187): 心动周期对双层计算机断层扫描心肌细胞外体积分数测量的影响
QIMS之窗 (188): 帕金森病和多系统萎缩皮质下铁沉积的定量磁敏感图:临床相关性和诊断意义
QIMS之窗 (189): 0~14岁儿童脑18氟脱氧葡萄糖正电子发射断层扫描正常对照模型的建立及变化规律分析
QIMS之窗 (190): 急性缺血性卒中后早期神经功能恶化的多模态成像评估
QIMS之窗 (192): 良性甲状腺结节的分期:原理和超声征象
QIMS之窗 (193): 独立评估5款人工智能软件检测胸片肺结节的准确性
QIMS之窗 (194): 合成磁共振成像在前列腺癌侵袭性诊断和评估中的价值
QIMS之窗 (195): 对比增强超声和高分辨率磁共振在评估组织学定义的易破裂颈动脉斑块的诊断性能比较:系统文献综述和荟萃分析
QIMS 之窗(195):与南方华人相比,东南亚人群脊柱退变更少;这提示来自温暖地区的人群呈现内在更加健康的脊柱
QIMS之窗 (197): 乳腺超声医生使用可解释 ChatGPT 辅助诊断的初步实验
QIMS之窗 (198): 预测脑小血管疾病患者白质高信号进展和认知能力下降:基于磁共振的生境分析
QIMS之窗 (199): 人工智能测量肺结节用于确定肿瘤性磨玻璃结节的侵袭性
QIMS之窗 (200): 基于CT特征和强化定量分析预测肺部磨玻璃结节侵袭性和浸润程度