BACKGROUND: Pulmonary nodules are frequently detected during diagnostic chest imaging and as a result of lung cancer screening. Current guidelines for their evaluation are largely based on low-quality evidence, and patients and clinicians could benefit from more research in this area. METHODS: In this research statement from the American Thoracic Society, a multidisciplinary group of clinicians, researchers, and patient advocates reviewed available evidence for pulmonary nodule evaluation, characterized six focus areas to direct future research efforts, and identified fundamental gaps in knowledge and strategies to address them. We did not use formal mechanisms to prioritize one research area over another or to achieve consensus. RESULTS: There was widespread agreement that novel tests (including novel imaging tests and biopsy techniques, biomarkers, and prognostic models) may improve diagnostic accuracy for identifying cancerous nodules. Before they are used in clinical practice, however, better evidence is needed to show that they improve more distal outcomes of importance to patients. In addition, the pace of research and the quality of clinical care would be improved by the development of registries that link demographic and nodule characteristics with patient-level outcomes. Methods to share data from registries are also necessary. CONCLUSIONS: This statement may help researchers to develop impactful and innovative research projects and enable funders to better judge research proposals. We hope that it will accelerate the pace and increase the efficiency of discovery to improve the quality of care for patients with pulmonary nodules.
BACKGROUND: Pulmonary nodules are frequently detected during diagnostic chest imaging and as a result of lung cancer screening. Current guidelines for their evaluation are largely based on low-quality evidence, and patients and clinicians could benefit from more research in this area. METHODS: In this research statement from the American Thoracic Society, a multidisciplinary group of clinicians, researchers, and patient advocates reviewed available evidence for pulmonary nodule evaluation, characterized six focus areas to direct future research efforts, and identified fundamental gaps in knowledge and strategies to address them. We did not use formal mechanisms to prioritize one research area over another or to achieve consensus. RESULTS: There was widespread agreement that novel tests (including novel imaging tests and biopsy techniques, biomarkers, and prognostic models) may improve diagnostic accuracy for identifying cancerous nodules. Before they are used in clinical practice, however, better evidence is needed to show that they improve more distal outcomes of importance to patients. In addition, the pace of research and the quality of clinical care would be improved by the development of registries that link demographic and nodule characteristics with patient-level outcomes. Methods to share data from registries are also necessary. CONCLUSIONS: This statement may help researchers to develop impactful and innovative research projects and enable funders to better judge research proposals. We hope that it will accelerate the pace and increase the efficiency of discovery to improve the quality of care for patients with pulmonary nodules.
Authors: M S Pepe; R Etzioni; Z Feng; J D Potter; M L Thompson; M Thornquist; M Winget; Y Yasui Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2001-07-18 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Vijay M Rao; David C Levin; Laurence Parker; Andrea J Frangos; Jonathan H Sunshine Journal: J Am Coll Radiol Date: 2011-10 Impact factor: 5.532
Authors: Kim N Danforth; Megan I Early; Sharon Ngan; Anne E Kosco; Chengyi Zheng; Michael K Gould Journal: J Thorac Oncol Date: 2012-08 Impact factor: 15.609
Authors: Christopher G Slatore; Nancy Press; David H Au; J Randall Curtis; Renda Soylemez Wiener; Linda Ganzini Journal: Ann Am Thorac Soc Date: 2013-08
Authors: Brady J McKee; Shawn M Regis; Andrea B McKee; Sebastian Flacke; Christoph Wald Journal: J Am Coll Radiol Date: 2014-08-28 Impact factor: 5.532
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: James Simmons; Michael K Gould; Jonathan Iaccarino; Christopher G Slatore; Renda Soylemez Wiener Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 2016-05-01 Impact factor: 21.405
Authors: Marc R Freiman; Jack A Clark; Christopher G Slatore; Michael K Gould; Steven Woloshin; Lisa M Schwartz; Renda Soylemez Wiener Journal: J Thorac Oncol Date: 2016-03-07 Impact factor: 15.609
Authors: Thomas H Urbania; Jennifer R Dusendang; Lisa J Herrinton; Stacey Alexeeff; Douglas A Corley; Sora Ely; Ashish Patel; Todd Osinski; Lori C Sakoda Journal: Chest Date: 2020-06-17 Impact factor: 9.410
Authors: Jonathan S Lee; Sarah Lisker; Eric Vittinghoff; Roy Cherian; David B McCoy; Alex Rybkin; George Su; Urmimala Sarkar Journal: Diagnosis (Berl) Date: 2019-11-26
Authors: Farhood Farjah; Scott Halgrim; Diana S M Buist; Michael K Gould; Steven B Zeliadt; Elizabeth T Loggers; David S Carrell Journal: EGEMS (Wash DC) Date: 2016-08-26