Standard-, Reduced-, and No-Dose Thin-Section Radiologic Examinations: Comparison of Capability for Nodule Detection and Nodule Type Assessment in Patients Suspected of Having Pulmonary Nodules

Purpose To compare the capability of pulmonary thin-section magnetic resonance (MR) imaging with ultrashort echo time (UTE) with that of standard- and reduced-dose thin-section computed tomography (CT) in nodule detection and evaluation of nodule type. Materials and Methods The institutional review board approved this study, and written informed consent was obtained from each patient. Standard- and reduced-dose chest CT (60 and 250 mA) and MR imaging with UTE were used to examine 52 patients; 29 were men (mean age, 66.4 years ± 7.3 [standard deviation]; age range, 48–79 years) and 23 were women (mean age, 64.8 years ± 10.1; age range, 42–83 years). Probability of nodule presence was assessed for all methods with a five-point visual scoring system. All nodules were then classified as missed, ground-glass, part-solid, or solid nodules. To compare nodule detection capability of the three methods, consensus for performances was rated by using jackknife free-response receiver operating characteristic analysis, and κ analysis was used to compare intermethod agreement for nodule type classification. Results There was no significant difference (F = 0.70, P = .59) in figure of merit between methods (standard-dose CT, 0.86; reduced-dose CT, 0.84; MR imaging with UTE, 0.86). There was no significant difference in sensitivity between methods (standard-dose CT vs reduced-dose CT, P = .50; standard-dose CT vs MR imaging with UTE, P = .50; reduced-dose CT vs MR imaging with UTE, P >.99). Intermethod agreement was excellent (standard-dose CT vs reduced-dose CT, κ = 0.98, P < .001; standard-dose CT vs MR imaging with UTE, κ = 0.98, P < .001; reduced-dose CT vs MR imaging with UTE, κ = 0.99, P < .001). Conclusion Pulmonary thin-section MR imaging with UTE was useful in nodule detection and evaluation of nodule type, and it is considered at least as efficacious as standard- or reduced-dose thin-section CT. © RSNA, 2017 Online supplemental material is available for this article.