OBJECTIVES: To analyse computed tomography (CT) findings of interval and post-screen carcinomas in lung cancer screening. METHODS: Consecutive interval and post-screen carcinomas from the Dutch-Belgium lung cancer screening trial were included. The prior screening and the diagnostic chest CT were reviewed by two experienced radiologists in consensus with knowledge of the tumour location on the diagnostic CT. RESULTS: Sixty-one participants (53 men) were diagnosed with an interval or post-screen carcinoma. Twenty-two (36%) were in retrospect visible on the prior screening CT. Detection error occurred in 20 cancers and interpretation error in two cancers. Errors involved intrabronchial tumour (n = 5), bulla with wall thickening (n = 5), lymphadenopathy (n = 3), pleural effusion (n = 1) and intraparenchymal solid nodules (n = 8). These were missed because of a broad pleural attachment (n = 4), extensive reticulation surrounding a nodule (n = 1) and extensive scarring (n = 1). No definite explanation other than human error was found in two cases. None of the interval or post-screen carcinomas involved a subsolid nodule. CONCLUSIONS: Interval or post-screen carcinomas that were visible in retrospect were mostly due to detection errors of solid nodules, bulla wall thickening or endobronchial lesions. Interval or post-screen carcinomas without explanation other than human errors are rare. KEY POINTS: • 22% of missed carcinomas originally presented as bulla wall thickening on CT. • 22% of missed carcinomas originally presented as endobronchial lesions on CT. • All malignant endobronchial lesions presented as interval carcinomas. • In the NELSON trial subsolid nodules were not a source of missed carcinomas.
OBJECTIVES: To analyse computed tomography (CT) findings of interval and post-screen carcinomas in lung cancer screening. METHODS: Consecutive interval and post-screen carcinomas from the Dutch-Belgium lung cancer screening trial were included. The prior screening and the diagnostic chest CT were reviewed by two experienced radiologists in consensus with knowledge of the tumour location on the diagnostic CT. RESULTS: Sixty-one participants (53 men) were diagnosed with an interval or post-screen carcinoma. Twenty-two (36%) were in retrospect visible on the prior screening CT. Detection error occurred in 20 cancers and interpretation error in two cancers. Errors involved intrabronchial tumour (n = 5), bulla with wall thickening (n = 5), lymphadenopathy (n = 3), pleural effusion (n = 1) and intraparenchymal solid nodules (n = 8). These were missed because of a broad pleural attachment (n = 4), extensive reticulation surrounding a nodule (n = 1) and extensive scarring (n = 1). No definite explanation other than human error was found in two cases. None of the interval or post-screen carcinomas involved a subsolid nodule. CONCLUSIONS: Interval or post-screen carcinomas that were visible in retrospect were mostly due to detection errors of solid nodules, bulla wall thickening or endobronchial lesions. Interval or post-screen carcinomas without explanation other than human errors are rare. KEY POINTS: • 22% of missed carcinomas originally presented as bulla wall thickening on CT. • 22% of missed carcinomas originally presented as endobronchial lesions on CT. • All malignant endobronchial lesions presented as interval carcinomas. • In the NELSON trial subsolid nodules were not a source of missed carcinomas.
Authors: Nanda Horeweg; Carlijn M van der Aalst; Rozemarijn Vliegenthart; Yingru Zhao; Xueqian Xie; Ernst Th Scholten; Willem Mali; Erik Thunnissen; Carla Weenink; Harry J M Groen; Jan-Willem J Lammers; Kristiaan Nackaerts; Joost van Rosmalen; Matthijs Oudkerk; Harry J de Koning Journal: Eur Respir J Date: 2013-07-11 Impact factor: 16.671
Authors: Ali O Farooqi; Matt Cham; Lijuan Zhang; Mary Beth Beasley; John H M Austin; Albert Miller; Javier J Zulueta; Heidi Roberts; Cole Enser; Shang-Jyh Kao; M K Thorsen; James P Smith; Daniel M Libby; Rowena Yip; David F Yankelevitz; Claudia I Henschke Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2012-10 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Stefan Diederich; Dag Wormanns; Michael Semik; Michael Thomas; Horst Lenzen; Nikolaus Roos; Walter Heindel Journal: Radiology Date: 2002-03 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Myrna C B Godoy; Peter L Cooperberg; Zeev V Maizlin; Ren Yuan; Annette McWilliams; Stephen Lam; John R Mayo Journal: J Thorac Imaging Date: 2008-02 Impact factor: 3.000
Authors: David S Gierada; Paul F Pinsky; Fenghai Duan; Kavita Garg; Eric M Hart; Ella A Kazerooni; Hrudaya Nath; Jubal R Watts; Denise R Aberle Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2017-01-03 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: U Pastorino; N Sverzellati; S Sestini; M Silva; F Sabia; M Boeri; A Cantarutti; G Sozzi; G Corrao; A Marchianò Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 2019-07-20 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: Alan A Peters; Adrian T Huber; Verena C Obmann; Johannes T Heverhagen; Andreas Christe; Lukas Ebner Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2022-01-21 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Annemie Snoeckx; Pieter Reyntiens; Damien Desbuquoit; Maarten J Spinhoven; Paul E Van Schil; Jan P van Meerbeeck; Paul M Parizel Journal: Insights Imaging Date: 2017-11-15