Michael Meier-Schroers1, Rami Homsi2, Dirk Skowasch3, Jens Buermann4, Matthias Zipfel5, Hans Heinz Schild2, Daniel Thomas2. 1. Department of Radiology, University of Bonn, Sigmund-Freud-Str 25, 53127, Bonn, Germany. michael.meier@ukbonn.de. 2. Department of Radiology, University of Bonn, Sigmund-Freud-Str 25, 53127, Bonn, Germany. 3. Department of Cardiology, Pneumology and Angiology, University of Bonn, Sigmund-Freud-Str 25, 53127, Bonn, Germany. 4. Department of Surgery, University of Bonn, Sigmund-Freud-Str 25, 53127, Bonn, Germany. 5. Department of Oncology, Hematology, Immunooncology and Rheumatology, University of Bonn, Sigmund-Freud-Str 25, 53127, Bonn, Germany.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate the suitability of MRI for lung cancer screening in a high-risk population. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A 5-year lung cancer screening program comparing MRI and low-dose CT (LDCT) in a high-risk population was initiated. 224 subjects were examined with MRI and LDCT. Acquired MRI sequences were T2w MultiVane XD, balanced steady-state-free precession, 3D T1w GRE, and DWI with a maximum in-room-time of 20 min. Categorization and management of nodules were based on Lung-RADS. MRI findings were correlated with LDCT as a reference. Here, we report on the first screening round. RESULTS: MRI accurately detected 61 of 88 nodules 4-5 mm, 20 of 21 nodules 6-7 mm, 12 of 12 nodules 8-14 mm, 4 of 4 nodules ≥ 15 mm (solid nodules), and 8 of 11 subsolid nodules. Sensitivity/specificity of MRI for nodule detection was 69.3/96.4% for 4-5 mm, 95.2/99.6% for 6-7 mm, 100/99.6% for 8-14 mm, 100/100% for ≥ 15 mm (solid nodules), and 72.7/99.2% for subsolid nodules. The early recall rate was 13.8% for MRI and 12.5% for LDCT. Following Lung-RADS recommendations and based on interdisciplinary consensus, histology was obtained in eight subjects. The biopsy rate was 3.6% for MRI and 3.4% for LDCT. In all of these eight cases, the nodules were carcinomas, and all of them were accurately detected by MRI. CONCLUSION: The results of the first screening round suggest that MRI is suitable for lung cancer screening with an excellent sensitivity and specificity for nodules ≥ 6 mm.
PURPOSE: To evaluate the suitability of MRI for lung cancer screening in a high-risk population. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A 5-year lung cancer screening program comparing MRI and low-dose CT (LDCT) in a high-risk population was initiated. 224 subjects were examined with MRI and LDCT. Acquired MRI sequences were T2w MultiVane XD, balanced steady-state-free precession, 3D T1w GRE, and DWI with a maximum in-room-time of 20 min. Categorization and management of nodules were based on Lung-RADS. MRI findings were correlated with LDCT as a reference. Here, we report on the first screening round. RESULTS: MRI accurately detected 61 of 88 nodules 4-5 mm, 20 of 21 nodules 6-7 mm, 12 of 12 nodules 8-14 mm, 4 of 4 nodules ≥ 15 mm (solid nodules), and 8 of 11 subsolid nodules. Sensitivity/specificity of MRI for nodule detection was 69.3/96.4% for 4-5 mm, 95.2/99.6% for 6-7 mm, 100/99.6% for 8-14 mm, 100/100% for ≥ 15 mm (solid nodules), and 72.7/99.2% for subsolid nodules. The early recall rate was 13.8% for MRI and 12.5% for LDCT. Following Lung-RADS recommendations and based on interdisciplinary consensus, histology was obtained in eight subjects. The biopsy rate was 3.6% for MRI and 3.4% for LDCT. In all of these eight cases, the nodules were carcinomas, and all of them were accurately detected by MRI. CONCLUSION: The results of the first screening round suggest that MRI is suitable for lung cancer screening with an excellent sensitivity and specificity for nodules ≥ 6 mm.
Authors: Patricia A Carney; Edward A Sickles; Barbara S Monsees; Lawrence W Bassett; R James Brenner; Stephen A Feig; Robert A Smith; Robert D Rosenberg; T Andrew Bogart; Sally Browning; Jane W Barry; Mary M Kelly; Khai A Tran; Diana L Miglioretti Journal: Radiology Date: 2010-05 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Smitha Rajaram; Andrew J Swift; David Capener; Adam Telfer; Christine Davies; Catherine Hill; Robin Condliffe; Charles Elliot; Judith Hurdman; David G Kiely; Jim M Wild Journal: Radiology Date: 2012-03-06 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Andrzej Cieszanowski; Antonina Lisowska; Marta Dabrowska; Piotr Korczynski; Malgorzata Zukowska; Ireneusz P Grudzinski; Ryszard Pacho; Olgierd Rowinski; Rafal Krenke Journal: PLoS One Date: 2016-06-03 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Bradley D Allen; Mark L Schiebler; Gregor Sommer; Hans-Ulrich Kauczor; Juergen Biederer; Timothy J Kruser; James C Carr; Gordon Hazen Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2019-11-20 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Michael Meier-Schroers; Rami Homsi; Jürgen Gieseke; Hans Heinz Schild; Daniel Thomas Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2018-07-10 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Emeline Darçot; Mario Jreige; David C Rotzinger; Stacey Gidoin Tuyet Van; Alessio Casutt; Jean Delacoste; Julien Simons; Olivier Long; Flore Buela; Jean-Baptiste Ledoux; John O Prior; Alban Lovis; Catherine Beigelman-Aubry Journal: Front Med (Lausanne) Date: 2022-04-28