BACKGROUND:Lung cancer screening with low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) has been recommended, based primarily on the results of the NLST (National Lung Screening Trial). The American College of Radiology recently released Lung-RADS, a classification system for LDCT lung cancer screening. OBJECTIVE: To retrospectively apply the Lung-RADS criteria to the NLST. DESIGN: Secondary analysis of a group from a randomized trial. SETTING: 33 U.S. screening centers. PATIENTS: Participants were randomly assigned to the LDCTgroup of the NLST, were aged 55 to 74 years, had at least a 30-pack-year history of smoking, and were current smokers or had quit within the past 15 years. INTERVENTION: 3 annual LDCT lung cancer screenings. MEASUREMENTS: Lung-RADS classifications for LDCT screenings. Lung-RADS categories 1 to 2 constitute negative screening results, and categories 3 to 4 constitute positive results. RESULTS:Of 26 722 LDCT group participants, 26 455 received a baseline screening; 48 671 screenings were done after baseline. At baseline, the false-positive result rate (1 minus the specificity rate) for Lung-RADS was 12.8% (95% CI, 12.4% to 13.2%) versus 26.6% (CI, 26.1% to 27.1%) for the NLST; after baseline, the false-positive result rate was 5.3% (CI, 5.1% to 5.5%) for Lung-RADS versus 21.8% (CI, 21.4% to 22.2%) for the NLST. Baseline sensitivity was 84.9% (CI, 80.8% to 89.0%) for Lung-RADS versus 93.5% (CI, 90.7% to 96.3%) for the NLST, and sensitivity after baseline was 78.6% (CI, 74.6% to 82.6%) for Lung-RADS versus 93.8% (CI, 91.4% to 96.1%) for the NLST. LIMITATION: Lung-RADS criteria were applied retrospectively. CONCLUSION:Lung-RADS may substantially reduce the false-positive result rate; however, sensitivity is also decreased. The effect of using Lung-RADS criteria in clinical practice must be carefully studied. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: National Institutes of Health.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND:Lung cancer screening with low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) has been recommended, based primarily on the results of the NLST (National Lung Screening Trial). The American College of Radiology recently released Lung-RADS, a classification system for LDCT lung cancer screening. OBJECTIVE: To retrospectively apply the Lung-RADS criteria to the NLST. DESIGN: Secondary analysis of a group from a randomized trial. SETTING: 33 U.S. screening centers. PATIENTS: Participants were randomly assigned to the LDCT group of the NLST, were aged 55 to 74 years, had at least a 30-pack-year history of smoking, and were current smokers or had quit within the past 15 years. INTERVENTION: 3 annual LDCT lung cancer screenings. MEASUREMENTS: Lung-RADS classifications for LDCT screenings. Lung-RADS categories 1 to 2 constitute negative screening results, and categories 3 to 4 constitute positive results. RESULTS: Of 26 722 LDCT group participants, 26 455 received a baseline screening; 48 671 screenings were done after baseline. At baseline, the false-positive result rate (1 minus the specificity rate) for Lung-RADS was 12.8% (95% CI, 12.4% to 13.2%) versus 26.6% (CI, 26.1% to 27.1%) for the NLST; after baseline, the false-positive result rate was 5.3% (CI, 5.1% to 5.5%) for Lung-RADS versus 21.8% (CI, 21.4% to 22.2%) for the NLST. Baseline sensitivity was 84.9% (CI, 80.8% to 89.0%) for Lung-RADS versus 93.5% (CI, 90.7% to 96.3%) for the NLST, and sensitivity after baseline was 78.6% (CI, 74.6% to 82.6%) for Lung-RADS versus 93.8% (CI, 91.4% to 96.1%) for the NLST. LIMITATION: Lung-RADS criteria were applied retrospectively. CONCLUSION: Lung-RADS may substantially reduce the false-positive result rate; however, sensitivity is also decreased. The effect of using Lung-RADS criteria in clinical practice must be carefully studied. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: National Institutes of Health.
Authors: Denise R Aberle; Christine D Berg; William C Black; Timothy R Church; Richard M Fagerstrom; Barbara Galen; Ilana F Gareen; Constantine Gatsonis; Jonathan Goldin; John K Gohagan; Bruce Hillman; Carl Jaffe; Barnett S Kramer; David Lynch; Pamela M Marcus; Mitchell Schnall; Daniel C Sullivan; Dorothy Sullivan; Carl J Zylak Journal: Radiology Date: 2010-11-02 Impact factor: 11.105
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: 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: Denise R Aberle; Sarah DeMello; Christine D Berg; William C Black; Brenda Brewer; Timothy R Church; Kathy L Clingan; Fenghai Duan; Richard M Fagerstrom; Ilana F Gareen; Constantine A Gatsonis; David S Gierada; Amanda Jain; Gordon C Jones; Irene Mahon; Pamela M Marcus; Joshua M Rathmell; JoRean Sicks Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2013-09-05 Impact factor: 91.245
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: 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: Timothy R Church; William C Black; Denise R Aberle; Christine D Berg; Kathy L Clingan; Fenghai Duan; Richard M Fagerstrom; Ilana F Gareen; David S Gierada; Gordon C Jones; Irene Mahon; Pamela M Marcus; JoRean D Sicks; Amanda Jain; Sarah Baum Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2013-05-23 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Johanna Uthoff; Nicholas Koehn; Jared Larson; Samantha K N Dilger; Emily Hammond; Ann Schwartz; Brian Mullan; Rolando Sanchez; Richard M Hoffman; Jessica C Sieren Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2019-04-01 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Mary M Pasquinelli; Kevin L Kovitz; Matthew Koshy; Martha G Menchaca; Li Liu; Robert Winn; Lawrence E Feldman Journal: JAMA Oncol Date: 2018-09-01 Impact factor: 31.777
Authors: Ying Liu; Yoganand Balagurunathan; Thomas Atwater; Sanja Antic; Qian Li; Ronald C Walker; Gary T Smith; Pierre P Massion; Matthew B Schabath; Robert J Gillies Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2016-09-23 Impact factor: 12.531
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