Brady J McKee1, Jeffrey A Hashim2, Robert J French2, Andrea B McKee3, Paul J Hesketh4, Carla R Lamb5, Christina Williamson6, Sebastian Flacke2, Christoph Wald2. 1. Department of Radiology, Lahey Hospital & Medical Center, Burlington, Massachusetts. Electronic address: brady.mckee@lahey.org. 2. Department of Radiology, Lahey Hospital & Medical Center, Burlington, Massachusetts. 3. Department of Radiation Oncology, Lahey Hospital & Medical Center, Burlington, Massachusetts. 4. Department of Hematology and Oncology, Lahey Hospital & Medical Center, Burlington, Massachusetts. 5. Department of Pulmonary and Critical Care, Lahey Hospital & Medical Center, Burlington, Massachusetts. 6. Department of Cardiovascular and Thoracic Surgery, Lahey Hospital & Medical Center, Burlington, Massachusetts.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to compare results of National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) high-risk group 2 with those of NCCN high-risk group 1 in a clinical CT lung screening program. METHODS: The results of consecutive clinical CT lung screening examinations performed from January 2012 through December 2013 were retrospectively reviewed. All examinations were interpreted by radiologists credentialed in structured CT lung screening reporting, following the NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology: Lung Cancer Screening (version 1.2012). Positive results required a solid nodule ≥4 mm, a ground-glass nodule ≥5 mm, or a mediastinal or hilar lymph node >1 cm, not stable for >2 years. Significant incidental findings and findings suspicious for pulmonary infection were also recorded. RESULTS: A total of 1,760 examinations were performed (464 in group 2, 1,296 in group 1); no clinical follow-up was available in 432 patients (28%). Positive results, clinically significant incidental findings, and suspected pulmonary infection were present in 25%, 6%, and 6% in group 2 and 28.2%, 6.2%, and 6.6% in group 1, respectively. Twenty-three cases of lung cancer were diagnosed (6 in group 2, 17 in group 1), for annualized rates of malignancy of 1.8% in group 2 and 1.6% in group 1. CONCLUSION: NCCN group 2 results were substantively similar to those for group 1 and closely resemble those reported in the National Lung Screening Trial. Similar rates of positivity and lung cancer diagnosis in both groups suggest that thousands of additional lives may be saved each year if screening eligibility is expanded to include this particular high-risk group.
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to compare results of National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) high-risk group 2 with those of NCCN high-risk group 1 in a clinical CT lung screening program. METHODS: The results of consecutive clinical CT lung screening examinations performed from January 2012 through December 2013 were retrospectively reviewed. All examinations were interpreted by radiologists credentialed in structured CT lung screening reporting, following the NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology: Lung Cancer Screening (version 1.2012). Positive results required a solid nodule ≥4 mm, a ground-glass nodule ≥5 mm, or a mediastinal or hilar lymph node >1 cm, not stable for >2 years. Significant incidental findings and findings suspicious for pulmonary infection were also recorded. RESULTS: A total of 1,760 examinations were performed (464 in group 2, 1,296 in group 1); no clinical follow-up was available in 432 patients (28%). Positive results, clinically significant incidental findings, and suspected pulmonary infection were present in 25%, 6%, and 6% in group 2 and 28.2%, 6.2%, and 6.6% in group 1, respectively. Twenty-three cases of lung cancer were diagnosed (6 in group 2, 17 in group 1), for annualized rates of malignancy of 1.8% in group 2 and 1.6% in group 1. CONCLUSION: NCCN group 2 results were substantively similar to those for group 1 and closely resemble those reported in the National Lung Screening Trial. Similar rates of positivity and lung cancer diagnosis in both groups suggest that thousands of additional lives may be saved each year if screening eligibility is expanded to include this particular high-risk group.
Authors: Ping Yang; Yi Wang; Jason A Wampfler; Dong Xie; Shawn M Stoddard; Jun She; David E Midthun Journal: J Thorac Oncol Date: 2016-02 Impact factor: 15.609
Authors: Darragh F Halpenny; Jane D Cunningham; Niamh M Long; Ramon E Sosa; Michelle S Ginsberg Journal: J Thorac Oncol Date: 2016-05-17 Impact factor: 15.609
Authors: Douglas E Wood; Ella A Kazerooni; Scott L Baum; George A Eapen; David S Ettinger; Lifang Hou; David M Jackman; Donald Klippenstein; Rohit Kumar; Rudy P Lackner; Lorriana E Leard; Inga T Lennes; Ann N C Leung; Samir S Makani; Pierre P Massion; Peter Mazzone; Robert E Merritt; Bryan F Meyers; David E Midthun; Sudhakar Pipavath; Christie Pratt; Chakravarthy Reddy; Mary E Reid; Arnold J Rotter; Peter B Sachs; Matthew B Schabath; Mark L Schiebler; Betty C Tong; William D Travis; Benjamin Wei; Stephen C Yang; Kristina M Gregory; Miranda Hughes Journal: J Natl Compr Canc Netw Date: 2018-04 Impact factor: 11.908
Authors: Fleur Delva; Jacques Margery; François Laurent; Karine Petitprez; Jean-Claude Pairon Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2017-02-14 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: Eung Joo Park; Hokyou Lee; Hyeon Chang Kim; Seung Soo Sheen; Sang Baek Koh; Ki Soo Park; Nam Han Cho; Cheol-Min Lee; Dae Ryong Kang Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2020-04-24 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Shearwood McClelland; Jennifer Leberknight; B Ashleigh Guadagnolo; C Norman Coleman; Daniel G Petereit Journal: Adv Radiat Oncol Date: 2017-08-26