BACKGROUND: Effective strategies for managing patients with solitary pulmonary nodules (SPN) depend critically on the pre-test probability of malignancy. OBJECTIVE: To validate two previously developed models that estimate the probability that an indeterminate SPN is malignant, based on clinical characteristics and radiographic findings. METHODS: Data on age, smoking and cancer history, nodule size, location and spiculation were collected retrospectively from the medical records of 151 veterans (145 men, 6 women; age range 39-87 years) with an SPN measuring 7-30 mm (inclusive) and a final diagnosis established by histopathology or 2-year follow-up. Each patient's final diagnosis was compared with the probability of malignancy predicted by two models: one developed by investigators at the Mayo Clinic and the other developed from patients enrolled in a VA Cooperative Study. The accuracy of each model was assessed by calculating areas under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve and the models were calibrated by comparing predicted and observed rates of malignancy. RESULTS: The area under the ROC curve for the Mayo Clinic model (0.80; 95% CI 0.72 to 0.88) was higher than that of the VA model (0.73; 95% CI 0.64 to 0.82), but this difference was not statistically significant (Delta = 0.07; 95% CI -0.03 to 0.16). Calibration curves showed that the probability of malignancy was underestimated by the Mayo Clinic model and overestimated by the VA model. CONCLUSIONS: Two existing prediction models are sufficiently accurate to guide decisions about the selection and interpretation of subsequent diagnostic tests in patients with SPNs, although clinicians should also consider the prevalence of malignancy in their practice setting when choosing a model.
BACKGROUND: Effective strategies for managing patients with solitary pulmonary nodules (SPN) depend critically on the pre-test probability of malignancy. OBJECTIVE: To validate two previously developed models that estimate the probability that an indeterminate SPN is malignant, based on clinical characteristics and radiographic findings. METHODS: Data on age, smoking and cancer history, nodule size, location and spiculation were collected retrospectively from the medical records of 151 veterans (145 men, 6 women; age range 39-87 years) with an SPN measuring 7-30 mm (inclusive) and a final diagnosis established by histopathology or 2-year follow-up. Each patient's final diagnosis was compared with the probability of malignancy predicted by two models: one developed by investigators at the Mayo Clinic and the other developed from patients enrolled in a VA Cooperative Study. The accuracy of each model was assessed by calculating areas under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve and the models were calibrated by comparing predicted and observed rates of malignancy. RESULTS: The area under the ROC curve for the Mayo Clinic model (0.80; 95% CI 0.72 to 0.88) was higher than that of the VA model (0.73; 95% CI 0.64 to 0.82), but this difference was not statistically significant (Delta = 0.07; 95% CI -0.03 to 0.16). Calibration curves showed that the probability of malignancy was underestimated by the Mayo Clinic model and overestimated by the VA model. CONCLUSIONS: Two existing prediction models are sufficiently accurate to guide decisions about the selection and interpretation of subsequent diagnostic tests in patients with SPNs, although clinicians should also consider the prevalence of malignancy in their practice setting when choosing a model.
Authors: K Nakamura; H Yoshida; R Engelmann; H MacMahon; S Katsuragawa; T Ishida; K Ashizawa; K Doi Journal: Radiology Date: 2000-03 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: C I Henschke; D F Yankelevitz; I Mateescu; D W Brettle; T G Rainey; F S Weingard Journal: Clin Imaging Date: 1997 Nov-Dec Impact factor: 1.605
Authors: Gerarda J Herder; Harm van Tinteren; Richard P Golding; Piet J Kostense; Emile F Comans; Egbert F Smit; Otto S Hoekstra Journal: Chest Date: 2005-10 Impact factor: 9.410
Authors: Michael K Gould; Gillian D Sanders; Paul G Barnett; Chara E Rydzak; Courtney C Maclean; Mark B McClellan; Douglas K Owens Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2003-05-06 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Anders Carlsson; Viswam S Nair; Madelyn S Luttgen; Khun Visith Keu; George Horng; Minal Vasanawala; Anand Kolatkar; Mehran Jamali; Andrei H Iagaru; Ware Kuschner; Billy W Loo; Joseph B Shrager; Kelly Bethel; Carl K Hoh; Lyudmila Bazhenova; Jorge Nieva; Peter Kuhn; Sanjiv S Gambhir Journal: J Thorac Oncol Date: 2014-08 Impact factor: 15.609
Authors: Christopher G Slatore; Nanda Horeweg; James R Jett; David E Midthun; Charles A Powell; Renda Soylemez Wiener; Juan P Wisnivesky; Michael K Gould Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 2015-08-15 Impact factor: 21.405
Authors: Hiren J Mehta; James G Ravenel; Stephanie R Shaftman; Nichole T Tanner; Luca Paoletti; Katherine K Taylor; Martin C Tammemagi; Mario Gomez; Paul J Nietert; Michael K Gould; Gerard A Silvestri Journal: Chest Date: 2014-03-01 Impact factor: 9.410
Authors: Chad V Pecot; Ming Li; Xueqiong J Zhang; Rama Rajanbabu; Ciara Calitri; Aaron Bungum; James R Jett; Joe B Putnam; Carol Callaway-Lane; Steve Deppen; Eric L Grogan; David P Carbone; John A Worrell; Karel G M Moons; Yu Shyr; Pierre P Massion Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2012-02-28 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Wei Wu; Larry A Pierce; Yuzheng Zhang; Sudhakar N J Pipavath; Timothy W Randolph; Kristin J Lastwika; Paul D Lampe; A McGarry Houghton; Haining Liu; Liming Xia; Paul E Kinahan Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2019-05-21 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Oisin J O'Connell; Francisco A Almeida; Michael J Simoff; Lonny Yarmus; Ray Lazarus; Benjamin Young; Yu Chen; Roy Semaan; Timothy M Saettele; Joseph Cicenia; Harmeet Bedi; Corrine Kliment; Liang Li; Sonali Sethi; Javier Diaz-Mendoza; David Feller-Kopman; Juhee Song; Thomas Gildea; Hans Lee; Horiana B Grosu; Michael Machuzak; Macarena Rodriguez-Vial; George A Eapen; Carlos A Jimenez; Roberto F Casal; David E Ost Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 2017-06-15 Impact factor: 21.405
Authors: Jingbo Wang; Pawinee Mahasittiwat; Ka Kit Wong; Leslie E Quint; Feng-Ming Spring Kong Journal: Lung Cancer Date: 2012-07-28 Impact factor: 5.705