Literature DB >> 19955524

Management of lung nodules detected by volume CT scanning.

Rob J van Klaveren1, Matthijs Oudkerk, Mathias Prokop, Ernst T Scholten, Kristiaan Nackaerts, Rene Vernhout, Carola A van Iersel, Karien A M van den Bergh, Susan van 't Westeinde, Carlijn van der Aalst, Erik Thunnissen, Dong Ming Xu, Ying Wang, Yingru Zhao, Hester A Gietema, Bart-Jan de Hoop, Harry J M Groen, Geertruida H de Bock, Peter van Ooijen, Carla Weenink, Johny Verschakelen, Jan-Willem J Lammers, Wim Timens, Dik Willebrand, Aryan Vink, Willem Mali, Harry J de Koning.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The use of multidetector computed tomography (CT) in lung-cancer screening trials involving subjects with an increased risk of lung cancer has highlighted the problem for the clinician of deciding on the best course of action when noncalcified pulmonary nodules are detected by CT.
METHODS: A total of 7557 participants underwent CT screening in years 1, 2, and 4 of a randomized trial of lung-cancer screening. We used software to evaluate a noncalcified nodule according to its volume or volume-doubling time. Growth was defined as an increase in volume of at least 25% between two scans. The first-round screening test was considered to be negative if the volume of a nodule was less than 50 mm(3), if it was 50 to 500 mm(3) but had not grown by the time of the 3-month follow-up CT, or if, in the case of those that had grown, the volume-doubling time was 400 days or more.
RESULTS: In the first and second rounds of screening, 2.6% and 1.8% of the participants, respectively, had a positive test result. In round one, the sensitivity of the screen was 94.6% (95% confidence interval [CI], 86.5 to 98.0) and the negative predictive value 99.9% (95% CI, 99.9 to 100.0). In the 7361 subjects with a negative screening result in round one, 20 lung cancers were detected after 2 years of follow-up.
CONCLUSIONS: Among subjects at high risk for lung cancer who were screened in three rounds of CT scanning and in whom noncalcified pulmonary nodules were evaluated according to volume and volume-doubling time, the chances of finding lung cancer 1 and 2 years after a negative first-round test were 1 in 1000 and 3 in 1000, respectively. (Current Controlled Trials number, ISRCTN63545820.) 2009 Massachusetts Medical Society

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19955524     DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa0906085

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  N Engl J Med        ISSN: 0028-4793            Impact factor:   91.245


  221 in total

1.  The impact of radiologists' expertise on screen results decisions in a CT lung cancer screening trial.

Authors:  Marjolein A Heuvelmans; Matthijs Oudkerk; Pim A de Jong; Willem P Mali; Harry J M Groen; Rozemarijn Vliegenthart
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2014-11-04       Impact factor: 5.315

Review 2.  Imaging of lung cancer in the era of molecular medicine.

Authors:  Mizuki Nishino; David M Jackman; Hiroto Hatabu; Pasi A Jänne; Bruce E Johnson; Annick D Van den Abbeele
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2011-01-28       Impact factor: 3.173

3.  Evaluating the growth of pulmonary nodular ground-glass opacity on CT: comparison of volume rendering and thin slice images.

Authors:  Mingzhu Liang; Xueguo Liu; Weidong Li; Kunwei Li; Xiangmeng Chen; Guojie Wang; Kai Chen; Jinxin Zhang
Journal:  J Huazhong Univ Sci Technolog Med Sci       Date:  2011-12-16

4.  Non-invasive visualisation and volume estimation of maggot masses using computed tomography scanning.

Authors:  Aidan Johnson; Melanie Archer; Lyndie Leigh-Shaw; Matthew Brown; Chris O'Donnell; James Wallman
Journal:  Int J Legal Med       Date:  2013-01       Impact factor: 2.686

5.  Reflections on the 14th World Conference on Lung Cancer: A European Perspective.

Authors:  Suresh Senan; Pieter E Postmus
Journal:  Oncologist       Date:  2012-02-21

Review 6.  Screening for lung cancer using low-dose spiral CT: 10 years later, state of the art.

Authors:  M Zompatori; M Mascalchi; F Ciccarese; N Sverzellati; U Pastorino
Journal:  Radiol Med       Date:  2012-06-28       Impact factor: 3.469

Review 7.  Lung cancer screening: an update, discussion, and look ahead.

Authors:  Peter J Mazzone
Journal:  Curr Oncol Rep       Date:  2010-07       Impact factor: 5.075

8.  EUPS-argues that lung cancer screening should be implemented in 18 months.

Authors:  John K Field; David R Baldwin; Anand Devaraj; Matthijs Oudkerk
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2018-05-24       Impact factor: 3.039

Review 9.  Lung cancer screening.

Authors:  Antonio Gutierrez; Robert Suh; Fereidoun Abtin; Scott Genshaft; Kathleen Brown
Journal:  Semin Intervent Radiol       Date:  2013-06       Impact factor: 1.513

Review 10.  Methods and challenges in quantitative imaging biomarker development.

Authors:  Richard G Abramson; Kirsteen R Burton; John-Paul J Yu; Ernest M Scalzetti; Thomas E Yankeelov; Andrew B Rosenkrantz; Mishal Mendiratta-Lala; Brian J Bartholmai; Dhakshinamoorthy Ganeshan; Leon Lenchik; Rathan M Subramaniam
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2015-01       Impact factor: 3.173

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.