PURPOSE: To describe the appearances of overlooked lung cancer at computed tomographic (CT) examination and to analyze the reasons for failure to diagnose these lesions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fourteen patients with 15 overlooked lung cancers were identified by radiologists at three institutions. Location, shape, and cell type of each cancer were reviewed, and other relevant findings of CT examinations were assessed. RESULTS: The missed tumors manifested as endobronchial lesion (n = 10), solitary parenchymal nodule (n = 2), area of focal peripheral air-space disease (n = 2), or pleural-based thickening (n = 1). Eleven (73%) of the 15 lesions were located in a lower lobe. In six (43%) of 14 patients, major distracting findings were present elsewhere in the thorax. CONCLUSION: Endobronchial location and lower lobe predominance were the most common characteristics of overlooked lung cancer at CT. The presence of unrelated major abnormalities at CT may also have contributed to failure to diagnose the tumor.
PURPOSE: To describe the appearances of overlooked lung cancer at computed tomographic (CT) examination and to analyze the reasons for failure to diagnose these lesions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fourteen patients with 15 overlooked lung cancers were identified by radiologists at three institutions. Location, shape, and cell type of each cancer were reviewed, and other relevant findings of CT examinations were assessed. RESULTS: The missed tumors manifested as endobronchial lesion (n = 10), solitary parenchymal nodule (n = 2), area of focal peripheral air-space disease (n = 2), or pleural-based thickening (n = 1). Eleven (73%) of the 15 lesions were located in a lower lobe. In six (43%) of 14 patients, major distracting findings were present elsewhere in the thorax. CONCLUSION: Endobronchial location and lower lobe predominance were the most common characteristics of overlooked lung cancer at CT. The presence of unrelated major abnormalities at CT may also have contributed to failure to diagnose the tumor.
Authors: Annemilia Del Ciello; Paola Franchi; Andrea Contegiacomo; Giuseppe Cicchetti; Lorenzo Bonomo; Anna Rita Larici Journal: Diagn Interv Radiol Date: 2017 Mar-Apr Impact factor: 2.630
Authors: Arjun Nair; Natalie Gartland; Bruce Barton; Diane Jones; Leigh Clements; Nicholas J Screaton; John A Holemans; Stephen W Duffy; John K Field; David R Baldwin; David M Hansell; Anand Devaraj Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2016-07-27 Impact factor: 3.039
Authors: Ernst Th Scholten; Nanda Horeweg; Harry J de Koning; Rozemarijn Vliegenthart; Matthijs Oudkerk; Willem P Th M Mali; Pim A de Jong Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2014-09-04 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: K M Schartz; K S Berbaum; M T Madsen; B H Thompson; B F Mullan; R T Caldwell; B Hammett; A N Ellingson; E A Franken Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2013-01 Impact factor: 3.039
Authors: David S Gierada; Paul F Pinsky; Fenghai Duan; Kavita Garg; Eric M Hart; Ella A Kazerooni; Hrudaya Nath; Jubal R Watts; Denise R Aberle Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2017-01-03 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: K M Schartz; K S Berbaum; M T Madsen; B H Thompson; B F Mullan; R T Caldwell; B Hammett; A N Ellingson; E A Franken Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2012-09-06 Impact factor: 3.039
Authors: Kevin S Berbaum; Kevin M Schartz; Robert T Caldwell; Mark T Madsen; Brad H Thompson; Brian F Mullan; Andrew N Ellingson; Edmund A Franken Journal: Acad Radiol Date: 2012-10-26 Impact factor: 3.173