OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact of radiological expertise on screen result decisions in a CT lung cancer screening trial. METHODS: In the NELSON lung cancer screening trial, the baseline CT result was based on the largest lung nodule's volume. The protocol allowed radiologists to manually adjust screen results in cases of high suspicion of benign or malignant nodule nature. Participants whose baseline CT result was based on a solid or part-solid nodule were included in this study. Adjustments by radiologists at baseline were evaluated. Histology was the reference for diagnosis or to confirm benignity and stability on subsequent CT examinations. RESULTS: A total of 3,318 participants (2,796 male, median age 58.0 years) were included. In 195 participants (5.9 %) the initial baseline screen result was adjusted by the radiologist. Adjustment was downwards from positive or indeterminate to negative in two and 119 participants, respectively, and from positive to indeterminate in 65 participants. None of these nodules turned out to be malignant. In 9/195 participants (4.6 %) the screen result was adjusted upwards from negative to indeterminate or indeterminate to positive; two nodules were malignant. CONCLUSION: In one in 20 cases of baseline lung cancer screening, nodules were reclassified by the radiologist, leading to a reduction of false-positive screen results.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact of radiological expertise on screen result decisions in a CT lung cancer screening trial. METHODS: In the NELSON lung cancer screening trial, the baseline CT result was based on the largest lung nodule's volume. The protocol allowed radiologists to manually adjust screen results in cases of high suspicion of benign or malignant nodule nature. Participants whose baseline CT result was based on a solid or part-solid nodule were included in this study. Adjustments by radiologists at baseline were evaluated. Histology was the reference for diagnosis or to confirm benignity and stability on subsequent CT examinations. RESULTS: A total of 3,318 participants (2,796 male, median age 58.0 years) were included. In 195 participants (5.9 %) the initial baseline screen result was adjusted by the radiologist. Adjustment was downwards from positive or indeterminate to negative in two and 119 participants, respectively, and from positive to indeterminate in 65 participants. None of these nodules turned out to be malignant. In 9/195 participants (4.6 %) the screen result was adjusted upwards from negative to indeterminate or indeterminate to positive; two nodules were malignant. CONCLUSION: In one in 20 cases of baseline lung cancer screening, nodules were reclassified by the radiologist, leading to a reduction of false-positive screen results.
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: Dong Ming Xu; Hester Gietema; Harry de Koning; René Vernhout; Kristiaan Nackaerts; Mathias Prokop; Carla Weenink; Jan-Willem Lammers; Harry Groen; Matthijs Oudkerk; Rob van Klaveren Journal: Lung Cancer Date: 2006-09-20 Impact factor: 5.705
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: 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: Ying Wang; Rob J van Klaveren; Hester J van der Zaag-Loonen; Geertruida H de Bock; Hester A Gietema; Dong Ming Xu; Anne L M Leusveld; Harry J de Koning; Ernst T Scholten; Johny Verschakelen; Mathias Prokop; Matthijs Oudkerk Journal: Radiology Date: 2008-08 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Yingru Zhao; Geertruida H de Bock; Rozemarijn Vliegenthart; Rob J van Klaveren; Ying Wang; Luca Bogoni; Pim A de Jong; Willem P Mali; Peter M A van Ooijen; Matthijs Oudkerk Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2012-07-20 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Arjun Nair; Natalie Gartland; Bruce Barton; Diane Jones; Leigh Clements; Nicholas J Screaton; John A Holemans; Stephen W Duffy; John K Field; David R Baldwin; David M Hansell; Anand Devaraj Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2016-07-27 Impact factor: 3.039
Authors: Leslie J Kohman; Lin Gu; Nasser Altorki; Ernest Scalzetti; Linda J Veit; Jason M Wallen; Xiaofei Wang Journal: J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg Date: 2017-02-07 Impact factor: 5.209