OBJECTIVE: To demonstrate a data-driven method for personalizing lung cancer risk prediction using a large clinical dataset. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An algorithm was used to categorize nodules found in the first screening year of the National Lung Screening Trial as malignant or nonmalignant. Risk of malignancy for nodules was calculated based on size criteria according to the Fleischner Society recommendations from 2005, along with the additional discriminators of pack-years smoking history, sex, and nodule location. Imaging follow-up recommendations were assigned according to Fleischner size category malignancy risk. RESULTS: Nodule size correlated with malignancy risk as predicted by the Fleischner Society recommendations. With the additional discriminators of smoking history, sex, and nodule location, significant risk stratification was observed. For example, men with ≥60 pack-years smoking history and upper lobe nodules measuring >4 and ≤6 mm demonstrated significantly increased risk of malignancy at 12.4% compared to the mean of 3.81% for similarly sized nodules (P < .0001). Based on personalized malignancy risk, 54% of nodules >4 and ≤6 mm were reclassified to longer-term follow-up than recommended by Fleischner. Twenty-seven percent of nodules ≤4 mm were reclassified to shorter-term follow-up. DISCUSSION: Using available clinical datasets such as the National Lung Screening Trial in conjunction with locally collected datasets can help clinicians provide more personalized malignancy risk predictions and follow-up recommendations. CONCLUSION: By incorporating 3 demographic data points, the risk of lung nodule malignancy within the Fleischner categories can be considerably stratified and more personalized follow-up recommendations can be made.
OBJECTIVE: To demonstrate a data-driven method for personalizing lung cancer risk prediction using a large clinical dataset. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An algorithm was used to categorize nodules found in the first screening year of the National Lung Screening Trial as malignant or nonmalignant. Risk of malignancy for nodules was calculated based on size criteria according to the Fleischner Society recommendations from 2005, along with the additional discriminators of pack-years smoking history, sex, and nodule location. Imaging follow-up recommendations were assigned according to Fleischner size category malignancy risk. RESULTS: Nodule size correlated with malignancy risk as predicted by the Fleischner Society recommendations. With the additional discriminators of smoking history, sex, and nodule location, significant risk stratification was observed. For example, men with ≥60 pack-years smoking history and upper lobe nodules measuring >4 and ≤6 mm demonstrated significantly increased risk of malignancy at 12.4% compared to the mean of 3.81% for similarly sized nodules (P < .0001). Based on personalized malignancy risk, 54% of nodules >4 and ≤6 mm were reclassified to longer-term follow-up than recommended by Fleischner. Twenty-seven percent of nodules ≤4 mm were reclassified to shorter-term follow-up. DISCUSSION: Using available clinical datasets such as the National Lung Screening Trial in conjunction with locally collected datasets can help clinicians provide more personalized malignancy risk predictions and follow-up recommendations. CONCLUSION: By incorporating 3 demographic data points, the risk of lung nodule malignancy within the Fleischner categories can be considerably stratified and more personalized follow-up recommendations can be made.
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: 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: C Martin Tammemagi; Paul F Pinsky; Neil E Caporaso; Paul A Kvale; William G Hocking; Timothy R Church; Thomas L Riley; John Commins; Martin M Oken; Christine D Berg; Philip C Prorok Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2011-05-23 Impact factor: 13.506
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: Michael K Gould; James Fletcher; Mark D Iannettoni; William R Lynch; David E Midthun; David P Naidich; David E Ost Journal: Chest Date: 2007-09 Impact factor: 9.410
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