Rebecca M Lindell1, Thomas E Hartman2, Stephen J Swensen2, James R Jett3, David E Midthun3, Jayawant N Mandrekar4. 1. Department of Radiology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN. Electronic address: lindell.rebecca@mayo.edu. 2. Department of Radiology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN. 3. Department of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN. 4. Department of Biostatistics, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although no study has prospectively documented the rate at which lung cancers grow, many have assumed exponential growth. The purpose of this study was to document the growth of lung cancers detected in high-risk participants receiving annual screening chest CT scans. METHODS: Eighteen lung cancers were evaluated by at least four serial CT scans (4 men, 14 women; age range, 53 to 79 years; mean age, 66 years). CT scans were retrospectively reviewed for appearance, size, and volume (volume [v] = pi/6[ab(2)]). Growth curves (x = time [in days]; y = volume [cubic millimeters]) were plotted and subcategorized by histology, CT scan attenuation, stage, survival, and initial size. RESULTS: Inclusion criteria favored smaller, less aggressive cancers. Growth curves varied, even when subcategorized by histology, CT scan attenuation, stage, survival, or initial size. Cancers associated with higher stages, mortality, or recurrence showed fairly steady growth or accelerated growth compared with earlier growth, although these growth patterns also were seen in lesser-stage lung cancers. Most lung cancers enlarged at fairly steady increments, but several demonstrated fairly flat growth curves, and others demonstrated periods of accelerated growth. CONCLUSIONS: This study is the first to plot individual lung cancer growth curves. Although parameters favored smaller, less aggressive cancers in women, it showed that lung cancers are not limited to exponential growth. Tumor size at one point or growth between two points did not appear to predict future growth. Studies and equations assuming exponential growth may potentially misrepresent an indeterminate nodule or the aggressiveness of a lung cancer.
BACKGROUND: Although no study has prospectively documented the rate at which lung cancers grow, many have assumed exponential growth. The purpose of this study was to document the growth of lung cancers detected in high-risk participants receiving annual screening chest CT scans. METHODS: Eighteen lung cancers were evaluated by at least four serial CT scans (4 men, 14 women; age range, 53 to 79 years; mean age, 66 years). CT scans were retrospectively reviewed for appearance, size, and volume (volume [v] = pi/6[ab(2)]). Growth curves (x = time [in days]; y = volume [cubic millimeters]) were plotted and subcategorized by histology, CT scan attenuation, stage, survival, and initial size. RESULTS: Inclusion criteria favored smaller, less aggressive cancers. Growth curves varied, even when subcategorized by histology, CT scan attenuation, stage, survival, or initial size. Cancers associated with higher stages, mortality, or recurrence showed fairly steady growth or accelerated growth compared with earlier growth, although these growth patterns also were seen in lesser-stage lung cancers. Most lung cancers enlarged at fairly steady increments, but several demonstrated fairly flat growth curves, and others demonstrated periods of accelerated growth. CONCLUSIONS: This study is the first to plot individual lung cancer growth curves. Although parameters favored smaller, less aggressive cancers in women, it showed that lung cancers are not limited to exponential growth. Tumor size at one point or growth between two points did not appear to predict future growth. Studies and equations assuming exponential growth may potentially misrepresent an indeterminate nodule or the aggressiveness of a lung cancer.
Authors: Rebecca M Lindell; Thomas E Hartman; Stephen J Swensen; James R Jett; David E Midthun; Henry D Tazelaar; Jayawant N Mandrekar Journal: Radiology Date: 2007-02 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Stephen J Swensen; James R Jett; Thomas E Hartman; David E Midthun; Sumithra J Mandrekar; Shauna L Hillman; Anne-Marie Sykes; Gregory L Aughenbaugh; Aaron O Bungum; Katie L Allen Journal: Radiology Date: 2005-02-04 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: K Usuda; Y Saito; M Sagawa; M Sato; K Kanma; S Takahashi; C Endo; Y Chen; A Sakurada; S Fujimura Journal: Cancer Date: 1994-10-15 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Onno M Mets; Kaman Chung; Pieter Zanen; Ernst T Scholten; Wouter B Veldhuis; Bram van Ginneken; Mathias Prokop; Cornelia M Schaefer-Prokop; Pim A de Jong Journal: Eur Respir J Date: 2018-04-12 Impact factor: 16.671
Authors: William D Hazelton; Gary Goodman; William N Rom; Melvyn Tockman; Mark Thornquist; Suresh Moolgavkar; Joel L Weissfeld; Ziding Feng Journal: Math Biosci Date: 2012-06-15 Impact factor: 2.144
Authors: Jane P Ko; Erika J Berman; Manmeen Kaur; James S Babb; Elan Bomsztyk; Alissa K Greenberg; David P Naidich; Henry Rusinek Journal: Radiology Date: 2011-12-09 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Edward F Patz; Paul Pinsky; Constantine Gatsonis; Jorean D Sicks; Barnett S Kramer; Martin C Tammemägi; Caroline Chiles; William C Black; Denise R Aberle Journal: JAMA Intern Med Date: 2014-02-01 Impact factor: 21.873
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
Authors: Michael K Gould; Jessica Donington; William R Lynch; Peter J Mazzone; David E Midthun; David P Naidich; Renda Soylemez Wiener Journal: Chest Date: 2013-05 Impact factor: 9.410
Authors: Susan Fernandes; Gareth Williams; Elvira Williams; Katjana Ehrlich; James Stone; Neil Finlayson; Mark Bradley; Robert R Thomson; Ahsan R Akram; Kevin Dhaliwal Journal: Eur Respir J Date: 2021-03-25 Impact factor: 16.671