Nicola Sverzellati1, M Silva2, G Calareso3, C Galeone4, A Marchianò3, S Sestini5, G Sozzi6, U Pastorino5. 1. Radiology, Department of Surgical Sciences, University of Parma, Parma, Italy. nicolasve@tiscali.it. 2. Radiology, Department of Surgical Sciences, University of Parma, Parma, Italy. 3. Department of Radiology, Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori, Milan, Italy. 4. Department of Statistics and Quantitative Methods, Division of Biostatistics, Epidemiology and Public Health, Laboratory of Healthcare Research and Pharmacoepidemiology, University of Milano-Bicocca, Milan, Italy. 5. Department of Surgery, Section of Thoracic Surgery, Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori, Milan, Italy. 6. Tumor Genomics Unit, Department of Experimental Oncology and Molecular Medicine, Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori, Milan, Italy.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To compare the performance metrics of two different strategies of lung cancer screening by low-dose computed tomography (LDCT), namely, annual (LDCT1) or biennial (LDCT2) screen. METHODS:Recall rate, detection rate, interval cancers, sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values (PPV and NPV, respectively) were compared between LDCT1 and LDCT2 arms of the MILD trial over the first seven (T0-T6; median follow-up 7.3 years) and four rounds (T0-T3; median follow-up 7.3 years), respectively. RESULTS: 1152 LDCT1 and 1151 LDCT2 participants underwent a total of 6893 and 4715 LDCT scans, respectively. The overall recall rate was higher in LDCT2 arm (6.97 %) than in LDCT1 arm (5.81 %) (p = 0.01), which was counterbalanced by the overall lower number of LDCT scans. No difference was observed for the overall detection rate (0.56 % in both arms). The two LDCT arms had similar specificity (99.2 % in both arms), sensitivity (73.5 %, in LDCT2 vs. 68.5 % in LDCT1, p = 0.62), PPV (42.4 %, in LDCT2, vs. 40.6 %, in LDCT1, p = 0.83) and NPV (99.8 %, in LDCT2 vs. 99.7 %, in LDCT1, p = 0.71). CONCLUSION: Biennial screen may save about one third of LDCT scans with similar performance indicators as compared to annual screening. KEY POINTS: • Biennial LDCT screening may be as efficient as the annual screening. • Annual and biennial LDCT screening have similar frequency of interval lung cancers. • Biennial screening may save about one third of LDCT scans.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVES: To compare the performance metrics of two different strategies of lung cancer screening by low-dose computed tomography (LDCT), namely, annual (LDCT1) or biennial (LDCT2) screen. METHODS: Recall rate, detection rate, interval cancers, sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values (PPV and NPV, respectively) were compared between LDCT1 and LDCT2 arms of the MILD trial over the first seven (T0-T6; median follow-up 7.3 years) and four rounds (T0-T3; median follow-up 7.3 years), respectively. RESULTS: 1152 LDCT1 and 1151 LDCT2 participants underwent a total of 6893 and 4715 LDCT scans, respectively. The overall recall rate was higher in LDCT2 arm (6.97 %) than in LDCT1 arm (5.81 %) (p = 0.01), which was counterbalanced by the overall lower number of LDCT scans. No difference was observed for the overall detection rate (0.56 % in both arms). The two LDCT arms had similar specificity (99.2 % in both arms), sensitivity (73.5 %, in LDCT2 vs. 68.5 % in LDCT1, p = 0.62), PPV (42.4 %, in LDCT2, vs. 40.6 %, in LDCT1, p = 0.83) and NPV (99.8 %, in LDCT2 vs. 99.7 %, in LDCT1, p = 0.71). CONCLUSION: Biennial screen may save about one third of LDCT scans with similar performance indicators as compared to annual screening. KEY POINTS: • Biennial LDCT screening may be as efficient as the annual screening. • Annual and biennial LDCT screening have similar frequency of interval lung cancers. • Biennial screening may save about one third of LDCT scans.
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: Ugo Pastorino; Marta Rossi; Valentina Rosato; Alfonso Marchianò; Nicola Sverzellati; Carlo Morosi; Alessandra Fabbri; Carlotta Galeone; Eva Negri; Gabriella Sozzi; Giuseppe Pelosi; Carlo La Vecchia Journal: Eur J Cancer Prev Date: 2012-05 Impact factor: 2.497
Authors: N Becker; E Motsch; M-L Gross; A Eigentopf; C P Heussel; H Dienemann; P A Schnabel; L Pilz; M Eichinger; D-E Optazaite; M Puderbach; J Tremper; S Delorme Journal: J Cancer Res Clin Oncol Date: 2012-04-21 Impact factor: 4.553
Authors: Alfonso Marchianò; Elisa Calabrò; Enrico Civelli; Giuseppe Di Tolla; Laura Francesca Frigerio; Carlo Morosi; Francesco Tafaro; Elena Ferri; Nicola Sverzellati; Tiziana Camerini; Luigi Mariani; Salvatore Lo Vullo; Ugo Pastorino Journal: Radiology Date: 2009-04-20 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: John K Field; Rob van Klaveren; Jesper H Pedersen; Ugo Pastorino; Eugino Paci; Nikolauss Becker; Maurizo Infante; Matthijs Oudkerk; Harry J de Koning Journal: J Surg Oncol Date: 2013-07-25 Impact factor: 3.454
Authors: Hilary A Robbins; Christine D Berg; Li C Cheung; Anil K Chaturvedi; Hormuzd A Katki Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2019-09-01 Impact factor: 13.506