Michael Meier-Schroers1, Rami Homsi1, Jürgen Gieseke2, Hans Heinz Schild1, Daniel Thomas3. 1. Department of Radiology, University of Bonn, Sigmund-Freud-Str 25, 53127, Bonn, Germany. 2. Philips Healthcare Germany, Lübeckertordamm 5, 20099, Hamburg, Germany. 3. Department of Radiology, University of Bonn, Sigmund-Freud-Str 25, 53127, Bonn, Germany. daniel.thomas@ukbonn.de.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate MRI for lung cancer screening comparing LDCT- and MRI-derived Lung-RADS categories in the first two screening rounds. MATERIALS AND METHODS: 224 participants in a lung cancer screening study were examined with MRI and low-dose CT (LDCT). Acquired MRI sequences were T2, balanced, T1 and DWI. MRI was prospectively analysed regarding nodules. Minimum nodule size was 4 mm. Nodules were assigned a Lung-RADS score based on appearance and size at baseline and after 3, 6 and 12 months. MRI findings were correlated with LDCT. RESULTS: The early recall rate dropped from 13.8% at baseline to 1.9% in the second screening round with biopsy rates of 3.6% in the first round and 0.5% in the second round. Histology revealed lung cancer in 8/9 participants undergoing biopsy/surgery. All eight cancers were accurately depicted by MRI. The following categories were assigned on MRI (results of LDCT in parentheses): 4B/4X in 10 (10) cases, 4A in 16 (15) cases, 3 in 13 (12) cases, 2 in 77 (92) cases and 1 in 140 (126) cases. Lung-RADS scoring correlated significantly between MRI and CT. The score was overestimated by MRI in one case for category 4A, in two cases for category 3 and in five cases for category 2. MRI-based Lung-RADS score was underestimated for category 1 in 20 cases. CONCLUSION: Lung-RADS might be applied for lung cancer screening with MRI, since findings correlated with LDCT. Relevant findings with a Lung-RADS score of 3 and higher were never missed or underestimated by MRI KEY POINTS: • MRI performed comparably to low-dose CT in a lung cancer-screening programme. • Lung-RADS might be applied for lung cancer screening with MRI. • Lung-RADS findings score of 3 and higher were never missed by MRI.
PURPOSE: To evaluate MRI for lung cancer screening comparing LDCT- and MRI-derived Lung-RADS categories in the first two screening rounds. MATERIALS AND METHODS: 224 participants in a lung cancer screening study were examined with MRI and low-dose CT (LDCT). Acquired MRI sequences were T2, balanced, T1 and DWI. MRI was prospectively analysed regarding nodules. Minimum nodule size was 4 mm. Nodules were assigned a Lung-RADS score based on appearance and size at baseline and after 3, 6 and 12 months. MRI findings were correlated with LDCT. RESULTS: The early recall rate dropped from 13.8% at baseline to 1.9% in the second screening round with biopsy rates of 3.6% in the first round and 0.5% in the second round. Histology revealed lung cancer in 8/9 participants undergoing biopsy/surgery. All eight cancers were accurately depicted by MRI. The following categories were assigned on MRI (results of LDCT in parentheses): 4B/4X in 10 (10) cases, 4A in 16 (15) cases, 3 in 13 (12) cases, 2 in 77 (92) cases and 1 in 140 (126) cases. Lung-RADS scoring correlated significantly between MRI and CT. The score was overestimated by MRI in one case for category 4A, in two cases for category 3 and in five cases for category 2. MRI-based Lung-RADS score was underestimated for category 1 in 20 cases. CONCLUSION: Lung-RADS might be applied for lung cancer screening with MRI, since findings correlated with LDCT. Relevant findings with a Lung-RADS score of 3 and higher were never missed or underestimated by MRI KEY POINTS: • MRI performed comparably to low-dose CT in a lung cancer-screening programme. • Lung-RADS might be applied for lung cancer screening with MRI. • Lung-RADS findings score of 3 and higher were never missed by MRI.
Entities:
Keywords:
Early detection of cancer; Lung; Lung neoplasms; Magnetic resonance imaging; Multidetector computed tomography
Authors: N Becker; E Motsch; M-L Gross; A Eigentopf; C P Heussel; H Dienemann; P A Schnabel; M Eichinger; D-E Optazaite; M Puderbach; M Wielpütz; H-U Kauczor; J Tremper; S Delorme Journal: J Thorac Oncol Date: 2015-06 Impact factor: 15.609
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: David S Gierada; Paul Pinsky; Hrudaya Nath; Caroline Chiles; Fenghai Duan; Denise R Aberle Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2014-10-18 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: J M Wild; H Marshall; M Bock; L R Schad; P M Jakob; M Puderbach; F Molinari; E J R Van Beek; J Biederer Journal: Insights Imaging Date: 2012-06-13
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: 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
Authors: Madeleine Bonert; Moritz Schneider; Olga Solyanik; Katharina Hellbach; David Bondesson; Thomas Gaass; Natalie Thaens; Jens Ricke; Thomas Benkert; Julien Dinkel Journal: PLoS One Date: 2020-12-23 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Min Jae Cha; Hye Shin Ahn; Hyewon Choi; Hyun Jeong Park; Thomas Benkert; Josef Pfeuffer; Mun Young Paek Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2021-10-07 Impact factor: 6.244