Vandana Sundaram1, Michael K Gould2, Viswam S Nair3. 1. Quantitative Sciences Unit, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA. Electronic address: sund@stanford.edu. 2. Division of Health Services Research and Implementation Science, Kaiser Permanente Southern California, La Cañada Flintridge, CA; Department of Health Systems Science, Kaiser Permanente Bernard J. Tyson School of Medicine, Pasadena, CA. 3. Clinical Research Division, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA; Division of Pulmonary, Critical Care and Sleep Medicine, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, WA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Pan-Canadian Early Detection of Lung Cancer (PanCan) risk model and the Lung CT Screening Reporting & Data System (Lung-RADS) estimate cancer probability for screening-detected nodules. The accuracy and agreement of these models require further study. RESEARCH QUESTION: What is the performance of the PanCan model and Lung-RADS to estimate the probability of cancer in screening-detected solid nodules? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: We analyzed data for newly identified, solid nodules detected on any screening round in the low-dose CT arm of the National Lung Screening Trial to assign a PanCan risk and Lung-RADS score. We compared PanCan risk with the corresponding Lung-RADS category according to the expected prevalence of cancer and examined accuracy using logistic regression and between-test agreement. We also analyzed baseline screen-detected nodules only, high (defined as ≥ 5% probability of cancer) vs low-risk nodules, "risk-gap" nodules with a 3% to 5% PanCan probability and no equivalent Lung-RADS category, and procedure use by model. RESULTS: Participants with solid nodules (6,956) had a calculable PanCan risk and Lung-RADS score. PanCan accuracy by cancer probabilities < 1%, 1% to 2%, 5% to 15%, and > 15% was similar to corresponding Lung-RADS categories 2, 3, 4A, and 4B for any solid nodule (area under the curve, 0.84 vs 0.84; P = .95) and for nodules identified at baseline (area under the curve, 0.85 vs 0.84; P = .17). When dichotomized by high/low risk, PanCan and Lung-RADS were discordant (P < .001). Participants with risk-gap nodules (n = 543) were distributed across Lung-RADS categories 2 through 4; 41 (8%) had invasive procedures with 23 (4%) having unnecessary invasive procedure use for solid, benign nodules. INTERPRETATION: PanCan and Lung-RADS had similar overall accuracy for assessing cancer in screening-detected, solid lung nodules with evidence of discordance by subgroup. The existence of Lung-RADS category 4 nodules with a ≥ 3% to 5% PanCan risk may result in unnecessary procedures.
BACKGROUND: The Pan-Canadian Early Detection of Lung Cancer (PanCan) risk model and the Lung CT Screening Reporting & Data System (Lung-RADS) estimate cancer probability for screening-detected nodules. The accuracy and agreement of these models require further study. RESEARCH QUESTION: What is the performance of the PanCan model and Lung-RADS to estimate the probability of cancer in screening-detected solid nodules? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: We analyzed data for newly identified, solid nodules detected on any screening round in the low-dose CT arm of the National Lung Screening Trial to assign a PanCan risk and Lung-RADS score. We compared PanCan risk with the corresponding Lung-RADS category according to the expected prevalence of cancer and examined accuracy using logistic regression and between-test agreement. We also analyzed baseline screen-detected nodules only, high (defined as ≥ 5% probability of cancer) vs low-risk nodules, "risk-gap" nodules with a 3% to 5% PanCan probability and no equivalent Lung-RADS category, and procedure use by model. RESULTS: Participants with solid nodules (6,956) had a calculable PanCan risk and Lung-RADS score. PanCan accuracy by cancer probabilities < 1%, 1% to 2%, 5% to 15%, and > 15% was similar to corresponding Lung-RADS categories 2, 3, 4A, and 4B for any solid nodule (area under the curve, 0.84 vs 0.84; P = .95) and for nodules identified at baseline (area under the curve, 0.85 vs 0.84; P = .17). When dichotomized by high/low risk, PanCan and Lung-RADS were discordant (P < .001). Participants with risk-gap nodules (n = 543) were distributed across Lung-RADS categories 2 through 4; 41 (8%) had invasive procedures with 23 (4%) having unnecessary invasive procedure use for solid, benign nodules. INTERPRETATION: PanCan and Lung-RADS had similar overall accuracy for assessing cancer in screening-detected, solid lung nodules with evidence of discordance by subgroup. The existence of Lung-RADS category 4 nodules with a ≥ 3% to 5% PanCan risk may result in unnecessary procedures.
Authors: Jong Hyuk Lee; Chang Min Park; Sang Min Lee; Hyungjin Kim; H Page McAdams; Jin Mo Goo Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2015-09-18 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Paul F Pinsky; David S Gierada; William Black; Reginald Munden; Hrudaya Nath; Denise Aberle; Ella Kazerooni Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2015-04-07 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: M E J Callister; D R Baldwin; A R Akram; S Barnard; P Cane; J Draffan; K Franks; F Gleeson; R Graham; P Malhotra; M Prokop; K Rodger; M Subesinghe; D Waller; I Woolhouse Journal: Thorax Date: 2015-08 Impact factor: 9.139
Authors: Thomas B Richards; V Paul Doria-Rose; Ashwini Soman; Carrie N Klabunde; Ralph S Caraballo; Simone C Gray; Keisha A Houston; Mary C White Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2018-11-19 Impact factor: 5.043
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: 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: Harry J de Koning; Carlijn M van der Aalst; Pim A de Jong; Ernst T Scholten; Kristiaan Nackaerts; Marjolein A Heuvelmans; Jan-Willem J Lammers; Carla Weenink; Uraujh Yousaf-Khan; Nanda Horeweg; Susan van 't Westeinde; Mathias Prokop; Willem P Mali; Firdaus A A Mohamed Hoesein; Peter M A van Ooijen; Joachim G J V Aerts; Michael A den Bakker; Erik Thunnissen; Johny Verschakelen; Rozemarijn Vliegenthart; Joan E Walter; Kevin Ten Haaf; Harry J M Groen; Matthijs Oudkerk Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2020-01-29 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Uraujh Yousaf-Khan; Carlijn van der Aalst; Pim A de Jong; Marjolein Heuvelmans; Ernst Scholten; Jan-Willem Lammers; Peter van Ooijen; Kristiaan Nackaerts; Carla Weenink; Harry Groen; Rozemarijn Vliegenthart; Kevin Ten Haaf; Matthijs Oudkerk; Harry de Koning Journal: Thorax Date: 2016-06-30 Impact factor: 9.139
Authors: Michael K Gould; Jessica Donington; William R Lynch; Peter J Mazzone; David E Midthun; David P Naidich; Renda Soylemez Wiener Journal: Chest Date: 2013-05 Impact factor: 9.410