Rationale: Lung-RADS classification was developed to standardize reporting and management of lung cancer screening using low-dose computed tomographic (LDCT) imaging. Although variation in Lung-RADS distribution between healthcare systems has been reported, it is unclear if this is explained by patient characteristics, radiologist experience with lung cancer screening, or other factors. Objectives: Our objective was to determine if patient or radiologist factors are associated with Lung-RADS score. Methods: In the Population-based Research to Optimize the Screening Process (PROSPR) Lung consortium, we conducted a study of patients who received their first screening LDCT imaging at one of the five healthcare systems in the PROSPR Lung Research Center from May 1, 2014, through December 31, 2017. Data on LDCT scans, patient factors, and radiologist characteristics were obtained via electronic health records. LDCT scan findings were categorized using Lung-RADS (negative [1], benign [2], probably benign [3], or suspicious [4]). We used generalized estimating equations with a multinomial distribution to compare the odds of Lung-RADS 3, and separately Lung-RADS 4, versus Lung-RADS 1 or 2 and estimated adjusted odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the associations between Lung-RADS assignment and patient and radiologist characteristics. Results: Analyses included 8,556 patients; 24% were assigned Lung-RADS 1, 60% Lung-RADS 2, 10% Lung-RADS 3, and 5% Lung-RADS 4. Age was positively associated with Lung-RADS 3 (OR, 1.02; 95% CI, 1.01-1.03) and 4 (OR, 1.03; 95% CI, 1.01-1.05); chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) was positively associated with Lung-RADS 4 (OR, 1.78; 95% CI, 1.45-2.20); obesity was inversely associated with Lung-RADS 3 (OR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.58-0.84) and 4 (OR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.45-0.75). There was no association between sex, race, ethnicity, education, or smoking status and Lung-RADS assignment. Radiologist volume of interpreting screening LDCT scans, years in practice, and thoracic specialty were also not associated with Lung-RADS assignment. Conclusions: Healthcare systems that are comprised of patients with an older age distribution or higher levels of COPD will have a greater proportion of screening LDCT scans with Lung-RADS 3 or 4 findings and should plan for additional resources to support appropriate and timely management of noted positive findings.
Rationale: Lung-RADS classification was developed to standardize reporting and management of lung cancer screening using low-dose computed tomographic (LDCT) imaging. Although variation in Lung-RADS distribution between healthcare systems has been reported, it is unclear if this is explained by patient characteristics, radiologist experience with lung cancer screening, or other factors. Objectives: Our objective was to determine if patient or radiologist factors are associated with Lung-RADS score. Methods: In the Population-based Research to Optimize the Screening Process (PROSPR) Lung consortium, we conducted a study of patients who received their first screening LDCT imaging at one of the five healthcare systems in the PROSPR Lung Research Center from May 1, 2014, through December 31, 2017. Data on LDCT scans, patient factors, and radiologist characteristics were obtained via electronic health records. LDCT scan findings were categorized using Lung-RADS (negative [1], benign [2], probably benign [3], or suspicious [4]). We used generalized estimating equations with a multinomial distribution to compare the odds of Lung-RADS 3, and separately Lung-RADS 4, versus Lung-RADS 1 or 2 and estimated adjusted odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the associations between Lung-RADS assignment and patient and radiologist characteristics. Results: Analyses included 8,556 patients; 24% were assigned Lung-RADS 1, 60% Lung-RADS 2, 10% Lung-RADS 3, and 5% Lung-RADS 4. Age was positively associated with Lung-RADS 3 (OR, 1.02; 95% CI, 1.01-1.03) and 4 (OR, 1.03; 95% CI, 1.01-1.05); chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) was positively associated with Lung-RADS 4 (OR, 1.78; 95% CI, 1.45-2.20); obesity was inversely associated with Lung-RADS 3 (OR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.58-0.84) and 4 (OR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.45-0.75). There was no association between sex, race, ethnicity, education, or smoking status and Lung-RADS assignment. Radiologist volume of interpreting screening LDCT scans, years in practice, and thoracic specialty were also not associated with Lung-RADS assignment. Conclusions: Healthcare systems that are comprised of patients with an older age distribution or higher levels of COPD will have a greater proportion of screening LDCT scans with Lung-RADS 3 or 4 findings and should plan for additional resources to support appropriate and timely management of noted positive findings.
Entities:
Keywords:
LDCT; Lung-RADS; lung cancer screening; radiologist
Authors: Chyke A Doubeni; Debra P Ritzwoller; Katharine A Rendle; Andrea N Burnett-Hartman; Christine Neslund-Dudas; Robert T Greenlee; Stacey Honda; Jennifer Elston Lafata; Pamela M Marcus; Mary E Cooley; Anil Vachani; Rafael Meza; Caryn Oshiro; Michael J Simoff; Mitchell D Schnall; Elisabeth F Beaber; V Paul Doria-Rose Journal: Cancer Prev Res (Phila) Date: 2019-12-23
Authors: Denise R Aberle; Sarah DeMello; Christine D Berg; William C Black; Brenda Brewer; Timothy R Church; Kathy L Clingan; Fenghai Duan; Richard M Fagerstrom; Ilana F Gareen; Constantine A Gatsonis; David S Gierada; Amanda Jain; Gordon C Jones; Irene Mahon; Pamela M Marcus; Joshua M Rathmell; JoRean Sicks 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: Edward F Patz; Paul Pinsky; Constantine Gatsonis; Jorean D Sicks; Barnett S Kramer; Martin C Tammemägi; Caroline Chiles; William C Black; Denise R Aberle Journal: JAMA Intern Med Date: 2014-02-01 Impact factor: 21.873
Authors: Peter J Mazzone; Gerard A Silvestri; Sheena Patel; Jeffrey P Kanne; Linda S Kinsinger; Renda Soylemez Wiener; Guy Soo Hoo; Frank C Detterbeck Journal: Chest Date: 2018-02-17 Impact factor: 9.410
Authors: Richard Wender; Elizabeth T H Fontham; Ermilo Barrera; Graham A Colditz; Timothy R Church; David S Ettinger; Ruth Etzioni; Christopher R Flowers; G Scott Gazelle; Douglas K Kelsey; Samuel J LaMonte; James S Michaelson; Kevin C Oeffinger; Ya-Chen Tina Shih; Daniel C Sullivan; William Travis; Louise Walter; Andrew M D Wolf; Otis W Brawley; Robert A Smith Journal: CA Cancer J Clin Date: 2013-01-11 Impact factor: 508.702
Authors: Nikki M Carroll; Andrea N Burnett-Hartman; Caroline A Joyce; William Kinnard; Eric J Harker; Virginia Hall; Julie S Steiner; Erica Blum-Barnett; Debra P Ritzwoller Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2020-01-23 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Danxia Yu; Wei Zheng; Mattias Johansson; Qing Lan; Yikyung Park; Emily White; Charles E Matthews; Norie Sawada; Yu-Tang Gao; Kim Robien; Rashmi Sinha; Arnulf Langhammer; Rudolf Kaaks; Edward L Giovannucci; Linda M Liao; Yong-Bing Xiang; DeAnn Lazovich; Ulrike Peters; Xuehong Zhang; Bas Bueno-de-Mesquita; Walter C Willett; Shoichiro Tsugane; Yumie Takata; Stephanie A Smith-Warner; William Blot; Xiao-Ou Shu Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2018-08-01 Impact factor: 13.506