Joan E Walter1, Marjolein A Heuvelmans2, Uraujh Yousaf-Khan3, Monique D Dorrius1, Erik Thunnissen4, Anna Schermann1, Harry J M Groen5, Carlijn M van der Aalst3, Kristiaan Nackaerts6, Rozemarijn Vliegenthart1, Harry J de Koning3, Matthijs Oudkerk7. 1. University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Center for Medical Imaging - North East Netherlands, Groningen, The Netherlands. 2. University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Center for Medical Imaging - North East Netherlands, Groningen, The Netherlands; Medisch Spectrum Twente, Department of Pulmonology, Enschede, The Netherlands. 3. Erasmus MC, Department of Public Health, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. 4. VU University Medical Center, Department of Pathology, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 5. University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Department of Pulmonology, Groningen, The Netherlands. 6. KU Leuven - University Hospitals Leuven, Department of Pulmonary Medicine, Leuven, Belgium. 7. University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Center for Medical Imaging - North East Netherlands, Groningen, The Netherlands. Electronic address: m.oudkerk@umcg.nl.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION:Low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) lung cancer screening is recommended in the United States. While new solid nodules after baseline screening have a high lung cancer probability at small size and require lower size cutoff values than baseline nodules, there only is limited evidence on management of new subsolid nodules. METHODS: Within the Dutch-Belgian randomized controlled LDCT lung cancer screening trial (NELSON), 7557 participants underwent baseline screening between April 2004 and December 2006. Participants with new subsolid nodules detected after the baseline screening round were included. RESULTS: In the three incidence screening rounds, 60 new subsolid nodules (43 [72%] part-solid, 17 [28%] nonsolid) not visible in retrospect were detected in 51 participants, representing 0.7% (51 of 7295) of participants with at least one incidence screening. Eventually, 6% (3 of 51) of participants with a new subsolid nodule were diagnosed with (pre-)malignancy in such a nodule. All (pre-)malignancies were adenocarcinoma (in situ) and diagnostic workup (referral 950, 364, and 366 days after first detection, respectively) showed favorable staging (stage I). Overall, 67% (33 of 49) of subsolid nodules with an additional follow-up screening were resolving. CONCLUSIONS: Less than 1% of participants in LDCT lung cancer screening presents with a new subsolid nodule after baseline. Contrary to new solid nodules, data suggest that new subsolid nodules may not require a more aggressive follow-up.
RCT Entities:
INTRODUCTION: Low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) lung cancer screening is recommended in the United States. While new solid nodules after baseline screening have a high lung cancer probability at small size and require lower size cutoff values than baseline nodules, there only is limited evidence on management of new subsolid nodules. METHODS: Within the Dutch-Belgian randomized controlled LDCT lung cancer screening trial (NELSON), 7557 participants underwent baseline screening between April 2004 and December 2006. Participants with new subsolid nodules detected after the baseline screening round were included. RESULTS: In the three incidence screening rounds, 60 new subsolid nodules (43 [72%] part-solid, 17 [28%] nonsolid) not visible in retrospect were detected in 51 participants, representing 0.7% (51 of 7295) of participants with at least one incidence screening. Eventually, 6% (3 of 51) of participants with a new subsolid nodule were diagnosed with (pre-)malignancy in such a nodule. All (pre-)malignancies were adenocarcinoma (in situ) and diagnostic workup (referral 950, 364, and 366 days after first detection, respectively) showed favorable staging (stage I). Overall, 67% (33 of 49) of subsolid nodules with an additional follow-up screening were resolving. CONCLUSIONS: Less than 1% of participants in LDCT lung cancer screening presents with a new subsolid nodule after baseline. Contrary to new solid nodules, data suggest that new subsolid nodules may not require a more aggressive follow-up.
Authors: Matthijs Oudkerk; ShiYuan Liu; Marjolein A Heuvelmans; Joan E Walter; John K Field Journal: Nat Rev Clin Oncol Date: 2020-10-12 Impact factor: 66.675
Authors: Asha Bonney; Reem Malouf; Corynne Marchal; David Manners; Kwun M Fong; Henry M Marshall; Louis B Irving; Renée Manser Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2022-08-03
Authors: Xiaonan Cui; Daiwei Han; Marjolein A Heuvelmans; Yihui Du; Yingru Zhao; Lei Zhang; Harry J M Groen; Geertruida H de Bock; Monique D Dorrius; Matthijs Oudkerk; Rozemarijn Vliegenthart; Zhaoxiang Ye Journal: Cancer Biol Med Date: 2020-02-15 Impact factor: 4.248
Authors: Yeon Wook Kim; Byoung Soo Kwon; Sung Yoon Lim; Yeon Joo Lee; Jong Sun Park; Young-Jae Cho; Ho Il Yoon; Kyung Won Lee; Jae Ho Lee; Jin-Haeng Chung; Eunjeong Ji; Choon-Taek Lee Journal: Thorax Date: 2021-04-15 Impact factor: 9.139