RATIONALE: As computed tomography (CT) screening for lung cancer becomes more widespread, volumetric analyses, including doubling times, of CT-screen detected lung nodules and lung cancers may provide useful information in the follow-up and management of CT-detected lung nodules and cancers. OBJECTIVES: To analyze doubling times in CT screen detected lung cancers and compare prevalent and nonprevalent cancers and different cell types on non small cell lung cancer. METHODS: We performed volumetric and doubling time analysis on 63 non–small cell lung cancers detected as part of the Pittsburgh Lung Screening Study using a commercially available VITREA 2 workstation and VITREA VITAL nodule segmentation software. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Doubling times (DT) were divided into three groups: rapid (DT<183 d), typical (DT 183–365 d), and slow (DT>365 d). Adenocarcinoma/bronchioloalveolar carcinoma comprised 86.7% of the slow DT group compared with 20% of the rapid DT group. Conversely, squamous cell cancer comprised 60% of the rapid DT group compared with 3.3% of the slow DT group. Twenty-eight of 42 (67%) prevalent and 2 of 21 (10%) nonprevalent cancers were in the slow DT group (P<0.0001; Fisher's exact test). Twenty-four of 32 (75%) prevalent and 1 of 11 (9%) nonprevalent adenocarcinomas were in the slow DT group (P<0.0002; Fisher's exact test). CONCLUSIONS: Volumetric analysis of CT-detected lung cancers is particularly useful in AC/BAC. Prevalent cancers have a significantly slower DT than nonprevalent cancers and a higher percentage of adenocarcinoma/bronchioloalveolar carcinoma. These results should affect the management of indeterminant lung nodules detected on screening CT scans.
RATIONALE: As computed tomography (CT) screening for lung cancer becomes more widespread, volumetric analyses, including doubling times, of CT-screen detected lung nodules and lung cancers may provide useful information in the follow-up and management of CT-detected lung nodules and cancers. OBJECTIVES: To analyze doubling times in CT screen detected lung cancers and compare prevalent and nonprevalent cancers and different cell types on non small cell lung cancer. METHODS: We performed volumetric and doubling time analysis on 63 non–small cell lung cancers detected as part of the Pittsburgh Lung Screening Study using a commercially available VITREA 2 workstation and VITREA VITAL nodule segmentation software. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Doubling times (DT) were divided into three groups: rapid (DT<183 d), typical (DT 183–365 d), and slow (DT>365 d). Adenocarcinoma/bronchioloalveolar carcinoma comprised 86.7% of the slow DT group compared with 20% of the rapid DT group. Conversely, squamous cell cancer comprised 60% of the rapid DT group compared with 3.3% of the slow DT group. Twenty-eight of 42 (67%) prevalent and 2 of 21 (10%) nonprevalent cancers were in the slow DT group (P<0.0001; Fisher's exact test). Twenty-four of 32 (75%) prevalent and 1 of 11 (9%) nonprevalent adenocarcinomas were in the slow DT group (P<0.0002; Fisher's exact test). CONCLUSIONS: Volumetric analysis of CT-detected lung cancers is particularly useful in AC/BAC. Prevalent cancers have a significantly slower DT than nonprevalent cancers and a higher percentage of adenocarcinoma/bronchioloalveolar carcinoma. These results should affect the management of indeterminant lung nodules detected on screening CT scans.
Authors: T Aoki; H Nakata; H Watanabe; K Nakamura; T Kasai; H Hashimoto; K Yasumoto; M Kido Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2000-03 Impact factor: 3.959
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: Helen T Winer-Muram; S Gregory Jennings; Robert D Tarver; Alex M Aisen; Mark Tann; Dewey J Conces; Cristopher A Meyer Journal: Radiology Date: 2002-06 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Denise R Aberle; Amanda M Adams; Christine D Berg; William C Black; Jonathan D Clapp; Richard M Fagerstrom; Ilana F Gareen; Constantine Gatsonis; Pamela M Marcus; JoRean D Sicks Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2011-06-29 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Kathleen A Cronin; Mitchell H Gail; Zhaohui Zou; Peter B Bach; Jarmo Virtamo; Demetrius Albanes Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2006-05-03 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Marjolein A Heuvelmans; Matthijs Oudkerk; Geertruida H de Bock; Harry J de Koning; Xueqian Xie; Peter M A van Ooijen; Marcel J W Greuter; Pim A de Jong; Harry J M Groen; Rozemarijn Vliegenthart Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2013-03-19 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Charles F Opalak; Matthew Parry; Andrew K Rock; Adam P Sima; Matthew T Carr; Vyshak Chandra; Kathryn G Workman; Aravind Somasundaram; William C Broaddus Journal: J Neurooncol Date: 2019-08-10 Impact factor: 4.130
Authors: Jun Qian; Shilin Zhao; Yong Zou; S M Jamshedur Rahman; Maria-Fernanda Senosain; Thomas Stricker; Heidi Chen; Charles A Powell; Alain C Borczuk; Pierre P Massion Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 2020-03-15 Impact factor: 21.405