Radiological-pathological correlation of subsolid pulmonary nodules: A single centre retrospective evaluation of the 2011 IASLC adenocarcinoma classification system

Abstract

IntroductionThe 2011 IASLC classification system proposes guidelines for radiologists and pathologists to classify adenocarcinomas spectrum lesions as preinvasive, minimally invasive adenocarcinoma (MIA), or invasive adenocarcinoma (IA). IA portends the worst clinical prognosis, and the imaging distinction between MIA and IA is controversial. Materials and methodsSubsolid pulmonary nodules resected by microcoil localization over a three-year period were retrospectively reviewed by three chest radiologists and a pulmonary pathologist. Nodules were classified radiologically based on preoperative computed tomography (CT), with the solid nodule component measured on mediastinal windows applied to high-frequency lung kernel reconstructions, and pathologically according to 2011 IASLC criteria. Radiology interobserver and radiological-pathological variability of nodule classification, and potential reasons for nodule classification discordance were assessed. ResultsSeventy-one subsolid nodules in 67 patients were included. The average size of invasive disease focus at histopathology was 5 mm (standard deviation 5 mm). Radiology interobserver agreement of nodule classification was good (Cohen’s Kappa = 0.604, 95 % CI: 0.447 to 0.761). Agreement between consensus radiological interpretation and pathological category was fair (Cohen’s Kappa = 0.236, 95 % CI: 0.054−0.421). Radiological and pathological nodule classification were concordant in 52 % (37 of 71) of nodules. The IASLC proposed CT solid component cut-off of 5 mm to distinguish MIA and IA yielded a sensitivity of 59 % and specificity of 80 %. Common reasons for nodule classification discordance included multiple solid components within a nodule on CT, scar and stromal collapse at pathology, and measurement variability. ConclusionSolid component(s) within persistent part-solid pulmonary nodules raise suspicion for invasive adenocarcinoma. Preoperative imaging classification is frequently discordant from final pathology, reflecting interpretive and technical challenges in radiological and pathological analysis.