OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to compare classification results from four major risk prediction models in a wide population of incidentally detected solitary pulmonary nodules (SPNs) which were selected to crossmatch inclusion criteria for the selected models. METHODS: A total of 285 solitary pulmonary nodules with a definitive diagnosis were evaluated by means of four major risk assessment models developed from non-screening populations, namely the Mayo, Gurney, PKUPH and BIMC models. Accuracy was evaluated by receiver operating characteristic (ROC) area under the curve (AUC) analysis. Each model's fitness to provide reliable help in decision analysis was primarily assessed by adopting a surgical threshold of 65 % and an observation threshold of 5 % as suggested by ACCP guidelines. RESULTS: ROC AUC values, false positives, false negatives and indeterminate nodules were respectively 0.775, 3, 8, 227 (Mayo); 0.794, 41, 6, 125 (Gurney); 0.889, 42, 0, 144 (PKUPH); 0.898, 16, 0, 118 (BIMC). CONCLUSIONS: Resultant data suggests that the BIMC model may be of greater help than Mayo, Gurney and PKUPH models in preoperative SPN characterization when using ACCP risk thresholds because of overall better accuracy and smaller numbers of indeterminate nodules and false positive results. KEY POINTS: • The BIMC and PKUPH models offer better characterization than older prediction models • Both the PKUPH and BIMC models completely avoided false negative results • The Mayo model suffers from a large number of indeterminate results.
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to compare classification results from four major risk prediction models in a wide population of incidentally detected solitary pulmonary nodules (SPNs) which were selected to crossmatch inclusion criteria for the selected models. METHODS: A total of 285 solitary pulmonary nodules with a definitive diagnosis were evaluated by means of four major risk assessment models developed from non-screening populations, namely the Mayo, Gurney, PKUPH and BIMC models. Accuracy was evaluated by receiver operating characteristic (ROC) area under the curve (AUC) analysis. Each model's fitness to provide reliable help in decision analysis was primarily assessed by adopting a surgical threshold of 65 % and an observation threshold of 5 % as suggested by ACCP guidelines. RESULTS: ROC AUC values, false positives, false negatives and indeterminate nodules were respectively 0.775, 3, 8, 227 (Mayo); 0.794, 41, 6, 125 (Gurney); 0.889, 42, 0, 144 (PKUPH); 0.898, 16, 0, 118 (BIMC). CONCLUSIONS: Resultant data suggests that the BIMC model may be of greater help than Mayo, Gurney and PKUPH models in preoperative SPN characterization when using ACCP risk thresholds because of overall better accuracy and smaller numbers of indeterminate nodules and false positive results. KEY POINTS: • The BIMC and PKUPH models offer better characterization than older prediction models • Both the PKUPH and BIMC models completely avoided false negative results • The Mayo model suffers from a large number of indeterminate 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: David M Hansell; Alexander A Bankier; Heber MacMahon; Theresa C McLoud; Nestor L Müller; Jacques Remy Journal: Radiology Date: 2008-01-14 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: M E J Callister; D R Baldwin; A R Akram; S Barnard; P Cane; J Draffan; K Franks; F Gleeson; R Graham; P Malhotra; M Prokop; K Rodger; M Subesinghe; D Waller; I Woolhouse Journal: Thorax Date: 2015-08 Impact factor: 9.139
Authors: Annette McWilliams; Martin C Tammemagi; John R Mayo; Heidi Roberts; Geoffrey Liu; Kam Soghrati; Kazuhiro Yasufuku; Simon Martel; Francis Laberge; Michel Gingras; Sukhinder Atkar-Khattra; Christine D Berg; Ken Evans; Richard Finley; John Yee; John English; Paola Nasute; John Goffin; Serge Puksa; Lori Stewart; Scott Tsai; Michael R Johnston; Daria Manos; Garth Nicholas; Glenwood D Goss; Jean M Seely; Kayvan Amjadi; Alain Tremblay; Paul Burrowes; Paul MacEachern; Rick Bhatia; Ming-Sound Tsao; Stephen Lam Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2013-09-05 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: James M Isbell; Stephen Deppen; Joe B Putnam; Jonathan C Nesbitt; Eric S Lambright; Aaron Dawes; Pierre P Massion; Theodore Speroff; David R Jones; Eric L Grogan Journal: Ann Thorac Surg Date: 2011-01 Impact factor: 4.330
Authors: Samuel G Armato; Karen Drukker; Feng Li; Lubomir Hadjiiski; Georgia D Tourassi; Roger M Engelmann; Maryellen L Giger; George Redmond; Keyvan Farahani; Justin S Kirby; Laurence P Clarke Journal: J Med Imaging (Bellingham) Date: 2016-12-19
Authors: Nichole T Tanner; Alexander Porter; Michael K Gould; Xiao-Jun Li; Anil Vachani; Gerard A Silvestri Journal: Chest Date: 2017-01-20 Impact factor: 9.410
Authors: Xiaonan Cui; Marjolein A Heuvelmans; Daiwei Han; Yingru Zhao; Shuxuan Fan; Sunyi Zheng; Grigory Sidorenkov; Harry J M Groen; Monique D Dorrius; Matthijs Oudkerk; Geertruida H de Bock; Rozemarijn Vliegenthart; Zhaoxiang Ye Journal: Transl Lung Cancer Res Date: 2019-10