Search

Health systems worldwide are implementing lung cancer screening programmes to identify early-stage lung cancer and maximise patient survival. Volumetry is recommended for follow-up of pulmonary nodules and outperforms other measurement methods. However, volumetry is known to be influenced by multiple factors. The objectives of this systematic review (PROSPERO CRD42022370233) are to summarise the current knowledge regarding factors that influence volumetry tools used in the analysis of pulmonary nodules, assess for significant clinical impact, identify gaps in current knowledge and suggest future research. Five databases (Medline, Scopus, Journals@Ovid, Embase and Emcare) were searched on the 21st of September, 2022, and 137 original research studies were included, explicitly testing the potential impact of influencing factors on the outcome of volumetry tools. The summary of these studies is tabulated, and a narrative review is provided. A subset of studies (n = 16) reporting clinical significance were selected, and their results were combined, if appropriate, using meta-analysis. Factors with clinical significance include the segmentation algorithm, quality of the segmentation, slice thickness, the level of inspiration for solid nodules, and the reconstruction algorithm and kernel in subsolid nodules. Although there is a large body of evidence in this field, it is unclear how to apply the results from these studies in clinical practice as most studies do not test for clinical relevance. The meta-analysis did not improve our understanding due to the small number and heterogeneity of studies testing for clinical significance. Critical relevance statement: Many studies have investigated the influencing factors of pulmonary nodule volumetry, but only 11% of these questioned their clinical relevance in their management. The heterogeneity among these studies presents a challenge in consolidating results and clinical application of the evidence. Key points: • Factors influencing the volumetry of pulmonary nodules have been extensively investigated. • Just 11% of studies test clinical significance (wrongly diagnosing growth). • Nodule size interacts with most other influencing factors (especially for smaller nodules). • Heterogeneity among studies makes comparison and consolidation of results challenging. • Future research should focus on clinical applicability, screening, and updated technology. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In Europe, lung cancer ranks third among the most common cancers, remaining the biggest killer. Since the publication of the first European Society of Radiology and European Respiratory Society joint white paper on lung cancer screening (LCS) in 2015, many new findings have been published and discussions have increased considerably. Thus, this updated expert opinion represents a narrative, non-systematic review of the evidence from LCS trials and description of the current practice of LCS as well as aspects that have not received adequate attention until now. Reaching out to the potential participants (persons at high risk), optimal communication and shared decision-making will be key starting points. Furthermore, standards for infrastructure, pathways and quality assurance are pivotal, including promoting tobacco cessation, benefits and harms, overdiagnosis, quality, minimum radiation exposure, definition of management of positive screen results and incidental findings linked to respective actions as well as cost-effectiveness. This requires a multidisciplinary team with experts from pulmonology and radiology as well as thoracic oncologists, thoracic surgeons, pathologists, family doctors, patient representatives and others. The ESR and ERS agree that Europe's health systems need to adapt to allow citizens to benefit from organised pathways, rather than unsupervised initiatives, to allow early diagnosis of lung cancer and reduce the mortality rate. Now is the time to set up and conduct demonstration programmes focusing, among other points, on methodology, standardisation, tobacco cessation, education on healthy lifestyle, cost-effectiveness and a central registry.Key Points• Pulmonologists and radiologists both have key roles in the set up of multidisciplinary LCS teams with experts from many other fields.• Pulmonologists identify people eligible for LCS, reach out to family doctors, share the decision-making process and promote tobacco cessation.• Radiologists ensure appropriate image quality, minimum dose and a standardised reading/reporting algorithm, together with a clear definition of a "positive screen".• Strict algorithms define the exact management of screen-detected nodules and incidental findings.• For LCS to be (cost-)effective, it has to target a population defined by risk prediction models. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]