BACKGROUND: Major issues in the implementation of screening for lung cancer by means of low-dose computed tomography (CT) are the definition of a positive result and the management of lung nodules detected on the scans. We conducted a population-based prospective study to determine factors predicting the probability that lung nodules detected on the first screening low-dose CT scans are malignant or will be found to be malignant on follow-up. METHODS: We analyzed data from two cohorts of participants undergoing low-dose CT screening. The development data set included participants in the Pan-Canadian Early Detection of Lung Cancer Study (PanCan). The validation data set included participants involved in chemoprevention trials at the British Columbia Cancer Agency (BCCA), sponsored by the U.S. National Cancer Institute. The final outcomes of all nodules of any size that were detected on baseline low-dose CT scans were tracked. Parsimonious and fuller multivariable logistic-regression models were prepared to estimate the probability of lung cancer. RESULTS: In the PanCan data set, 1871 persons had 7008 nodules, of which 102 were malignant, and in the BCCA data set, 1090 persons had 5021 nodules, of which 42 were malignant. Among persons with nodules, the rates of cancer in the two data sets were 5.5% and 3.7%, respectively. Predictors of cancer in the model included older age, female sex, family history of lung cancer, emphysema, larger nodule size, location of the nodule in the upper lobe, part-solid nodule type, lower nodule count, and spiculation. Our final parsimonious and full models showed excellent discrimination and calibration, with areas under the receiver-operating-characteristic curve of more than 0.90, even for nodules that were 10 mm or smaller in the validation set. CONCLUSIONS: Predictive tools based on patient and nodule characteristics can be used to accurately estimate the probability that lung nodules detected on baseline screening low-dose CT scans are malignant. (Funded by the Terry Fox Research Institute and others; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00751660.).
BACKGROUND: Major issues in the implementation of screening for lung cancer by means of low-dose computed tomography (CT) are the definition of a positive result and the management of lung nodules detected on the scans. We conducted a population-based prospective study to determine factors predicting the probability that lung nodules detected on the first screening low-dose CT scans are malignant or will be found to be malignant on follow-up. METHODS: We analyzed data from two cohorts of participants undergoing low-dose CT screening. The development data set included participants in the Pan-Canadian Early Detection of Lung Cancer Study (PanCan). The validation data set included participants involved in chemoprevention trials at the British Columbia Cancer Agency (BCCA), sponsored by the U.S. National Cancer Institute. The final outcomes of all nodules of any size that were detected on baseline low-dose CT scans were tracked. Parsimonious and fuller multivariable logistic-regression models were prepared to estimate the probability of lung cancer. RESULTS: In the PanCan data set, 1871 persons had 7008 nodules, of which 102 were malignant, and in the BCCA data set, 1090 persons had 5021 nodules, of which 42 were malignant. Among persons with nodules, the rates of cancer in the two data sets were 5.5% and 3.7%, respectively. Predictors of cancer in the model included older age, female sex, family history of lung cancer, emphysema, larger nodule size, location of the nodule in the upper lobe, part-solid nodule type, lower nodule count, and spiculation. Our final parsimonious and full models showed excellent discrimination and calibration, with areas under the receiver-operating-characteristic curve of more than 0.90, even for nodules that were 10 mm or smaller in the validation set. CONCLUSIONS: Predictive tools based on patient and nodule characteristics can be used to accurately estimate the probability that lung nodules detected on baseline screening low-dose CT scans are malignant. (Funded by the Terry Fox Research Institute and others; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00751660.).
Authors: Heber MacMahon; John H M Austin; Gordon Gamsu; Christian J Herold; James R Jett; David P Naidich; Edward F Patz; Stephen J Swensen Journal: Radiology Date: 2005-11 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Annette M McWilliams; John R Mayo; Myeong Im Ahn; Sharyn L S MacDonald; Stephen C Lam Journal: J Thorac Oncol Date: 2006-01 Impact factor: 15.609
Authors: Jennifer M Croswell; Stuart G Baker; Pamela M Marcus; Jonathan D Clapp; Barnett S Kramer Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2010-04-20 Impact factor: 25.391
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: John R Mayo; Joanne C Clifton; Tom I Powell; John C English; Ken G Evans; John Yee; Annette M McWilliams; Stephen C Lam; Richard J Finley Journal: Radiology Date: 2009-02 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: David P Naidich; Alexander A Bankier; Heber MacMahon; Cornelia M Schaefer-Prokop; Massimo Pistolesi; Jin Mo Goo; Paolo Macchiarini; James D Crapo; Christian J Herold; John H Austin; William D Travis Journal: Radiology Date: 2012-10-15 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Nanda Horeweg; Carlijn M van der Aalst; Erik Thunnissen; Kristiaan Nackaerts; Carla Weenink; Harry J M Groen; Jan-Willem J Lammers; Joachim G Aerts; Ernst T Scholten; Joost van Rosmalen; Willem Mali; Matthijs Oudkerk; Harry J de Koning Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 2013-04-15 Impact factor: 21.405
Authors: Ying Ru Zhao; Xueqian Xie; Harry J de Koning; Willem P Mali; Rozemarijn Vliegenthart; Matthijs Oudkerk Journal: Cancer Imaging Date: 2011-10-03 Impact factor: 3.909
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: Marco Spadafora; Leonardo Pace; Laura Evangelista; Luigi Mansi; Francesco Del Prete; Giorgio Saladini; Paolo Miletto; Stefano Fanti; Silvana Del Vecchio; Luca Guerra; Giovanna Pepe; Giuseppina Peluso; Emanuele Nicolai; Giovanni Storto; Marco Ferdeghini; Alessandro Giordano; Mohsen Farsad; Orazio Schillaci; Cesare Gridelli; Alberto Cuocolo Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2018-05-05 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Mathilde M Winkler Wille; Sarah J van Riel; Zaigham Saghir; Asger Dirksen; Jesper Holst Pedersen; Colin Jacobs; Laura Hohwü Thomsen; Ernst Th Scholten; Lene T Skovgaard; Bram van Ginneken Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2015-03-13 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Andrew V Kossenkov; Rehman Qureshi; Noor B Dawany; Jayamanna Wickramasinghe; Qin Liu; R Sonali Majumdar; Celia Chang; Sandy Widura; Trisha Kumar; Wen-Hwai Horng; Eric Konnisto; Gerard Criner; Jun-Chieh J Tsay; Harvey Pass; Sai Yendamuri; Anil Vachani; Thomas Bauer; Brian Nam; William N Rom; Michael K Showe; Louise C Showe Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2018-11-28 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: Peng Huang; Cheng T Lin; Yuliang Li; Martin C Tammemagi; Malcolm V Brock; Sukhinder Atkar-Khattra; Yanxun Xu; Ping Hu; John R Mayo; Heidi Schmidt; Michel Gingras; Sergio Pasian; Lori Stewart; Scott Tsai; Jean M Seely; Daria Manos; Paul Burrowes; Rick Bhatia; Ming-Sound Tsao; Stephen Lam Journal: Lancet Digit Health Date: 2019-10-17