Search

Objectives: Multiple lung cancer screening studies reported the performance of Lung CT Screening Reporting and Data System (Lung-RADS), but none systematically evaluated its performance across different populations. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the performance of Lung-RADS (versions 1.0 and 1.1) for detecting lung cancer in different populations. Methods: We performed literature searches in PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and Embase databases on October 21, 2022, for studies that evaluated the accuracy of Lung-RADS in lung cancer screening. A bivariate random-effects model was used to estimate pooled sensitivity and specificity, and heterogeneity was explored in stratified and meta-regression analyses. Results: A total of 31 studies with 104,224 participants were included. For version 1.0 (27 studies, 95,413 individuals), pooled sensitivity was 0.96 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.90–0.99) and pooled specificity was 0.90 (95% CI: 0.87–0.92). Studies in high-risk populations showed higher sensitivity (0.98 [95% CI: 0.92–0.99] vs. 0.84 [95% CI: 0.50–0.96]) and lower specificity (0.87 [95% CI: 0.85–0.88] vs. 0.95 (95% CI: 0.92–0.97]) than studies in general populations. Non-Asian studies tended toward higher sensitivity (0.97 [95% CI: 0.91–0.99] vs. 0.91 [95% CI: 0.67–0.98]) and lower specificity (0.88 [95% CI: 0.85–0.90] vs. 0.93 [95% CI: 0.88–0.96]) than Asian studies. For version 1.1 (4 studies, 8811 individuals), pooled sensitivity was 0.91 (95% CI: 0.83–0.96) and specificity was 0.81 (95% CI: 0.67–0.90). Conclusion: Among studies using Lung-RADS version 1.0, considerable heterogeneity in sensitivity and specificity was noted, explained by population type (high risk vs. general), population area (Asia vs. non-Asia), and cancer prevalence. Clinical relevance statement: Meta-regression of lung cancer screening studies using Lung-RADS version 1.0 showed considerable heterogeneity in sensitivity and specificity, explained by the different target populations, including high-risk versus general populations, Asian versus non-Asian populations, and populations with different lung cancer prevalence. Key Points: • High-risk population studies showed higher sensitivity and lower specificity compared with studies performed in general populations by using Lung-RADS version 1.0. • In non-Asian studies, the diagnostic performance of Lung-RADS version 1.0 tended to be better than in Asian studies. • There are limited studies on the performance of Lung-RADS version 1.1, and evidence is lacking for Asian populations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Predicted lung volumes based on the Global Lung Function Initiative (GLI) model are used in pulmonary disease detection and monitoring. It is unknown how well the predicted lung volume corresponds with computed tomography (CT) derived total lung volume (TLV). The aim of this study was to compare the GLI-2021 model predictions of total lung capacity (TLC) with CT-derived TLV. 151 female and 139 male healthy participants (age 45–65 years) were consecutively selected from a Dutch general population cohort, the Imaging in Lifelines (ImaLife) cohort. In ImaLife, all participants underwent low-dose, inspiratory chest CT. TLV was measured by an automated analysis, and compared to predicted TLC based on the GLI-2021 model. Bland-Altman analysis was performed for analysis of systematic bias and range between limits of agreement. To further mimic the GLI-cohort all analyses were repeated in a subset of never-smokers (51% of the cohort). Mean±SD of TLV was 4.7±0.9 L in women and 6.2±1.2 L in men. TLC overestimated TLV, with systematic bias of 1.0 L in women and 1.6 L in men. Range between limits of agreement was 3.2 L for women and 4.2 L for men, indicating high variability. Performing the analysis with never-smokers yielded similar results. In conclusion, in a healthy cohort, predicted TLC substantially overestimates CT-derived TLV, with low precision and accuracy. In a clinical context where an accurate or precise lung volume is required, measurement of lung volume should be considered. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Trials show that low-dose computed tomography (CT) lung cancer screening in long-term (ex-)smokers reduces lung cancer mortality. However, many individuals were exposed to unnecessary diagnostic procedures. This project aims to improve the efficiency of lung cancer screening by identifying high-risk participants, and improving risk discrimination for nodules. This study is an extension of the Dutch-Belgian Randomized Lung Cancer Screening Trial, with a focus on personalized outcome prediction (NELSON-POP). New data will be added on genetics, air pollution, malignancy risk for lung nodules, and CT biomarkers beyond lung nodules (emphysema, coronary calcification, bone density, vertebral height and body composition). The roles of polygenic risk scores and air pollution in screen-detected lung cancer diagnosis and survival will be established. The association between the AI-based nodule malignancy score and lung cancer will be evaluated at baseline and incident screening rounds. The association of chest CT imaging biomarkers with outcomes will be established. Based on these results, multisource prediction models for pre-screening and post-baseline-screening participant selection and nodule management will be developed. The new models will be externally validated. We hypothesize that we can identify 15–20% participants with low-risk of lung cancer or short life expectancy and thus prevent ~140,000 Dutch individuals from being screened unnecessarily. We hypothesize that our models will improve the specificity of nodule management by 10% without loss of sensitivity as compared to assessment of nodule size/growth alone, and reduce unnecessary work-up by 40–50%. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Lung cancer causes more deaths than breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer combined. Nevertheless, population‐based lung cancer screening is still not considered standard practice in most countries worldwide. Early lung cancer detection leads to better survival outcomes: patients diagnosed with stage 1A lung cancer have a >75% 5‐year survival rate, compared to <5% at stage 4. Low‐dose computed tomography (LDCT) thorax imaging for the secondary prevention of lung cancer has been studied at length, and has been shown to significantly reduce lung cancer mortality in high‐risk populations. The US National Lung Screening Trial reported a 20% overall reduction in lung cancer mortality when comparing LDCT to chest X‐ray, and the Nederlands‐Leuvens Longkanker Screenings Onderzoek (NELSON) trial more recently reported a 24% reduction when comparing LDCT to no screening. Hence, the focus has now shifted to implementation research. Consequently, the 4‐IN‐THE‐LUNG‐RUN consortium based in five European countries, has set up a large‐scale multicenter implementation trial. Successful implementation of and accessibility to LDCT lung cancer screening are dependent on many factors, not limited to population selection, recruitment strategy, computed tomography screening frequency, lung‐nodule management, participant compliance, and cost effectiveness. This review provides an overview of current evidence for LDCT lung cancer screening, and draws attention to major factors that need to be addressed to successfully implement standardized, effective, and accessible screening throughout Europe. Evidence shows that through the appropriate use of risk‐prediction models and a more personalized approach to screening, efficacy could be improved. Furthermore, extending the screening interval for low‐risk individuals to reduce costs and associated harms is a possibility, and through the use of volumetric‐based measurement and follow‐up, false positive results can be greatly reduced. Finally, smoking cessation programs could be a valuable addition to screening programs and artificial intelligence could offer a solution to the added workload pressures radiologists are facing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: To evaluate the performance of a novel convolutional neural network (CNN) for the classification of typical perifissural nodules (PFN).Methods: Chest CT data from two centers in the UK and The Netherlands (1668 unique nodules, 1260 individuals) were collected. Pulmonary nodules were classified into subtypes, including "typical PFNs" on-site, and were reviewed by a central clinician. The dataset was divided into a training/cross-validation set of 1557 nodules (1103 individuals) and a test set of 196 nodules (158 individuals). For the test set, three radiologically trained readers classified the nodules into three nodule categories: typical PFN, atypical PFN, and non-PFN. The consensus of the three readers was used as reference to evaluate the performance of the PFN-CNN. Typical PFNs were considered as positive results, and atypical PFNs and non-PFNs were grouped as negative results. PFN-CNN performance was evaluated using the ROC curve, confusion matrix, and Cohen's kappa.Results: Internal validation yielded a mean AUC of 91.9% (95% CI 90.6-92.9) with 78.7% sensitivity and 90.4% specificity. For the test set, the reader consensus rated 45/196 (23%) of nodules as typical PFN. The classifier-reader agreement (k = 0.62-0.75) was similar to the inter-reader agreement (k = 0.64-0.79). Area under the ROC curve was 95.8% (95% CI 93.3-98.4), with a sensitivity of 95.6% (95% CI 84.9-99.5), and specificity of 88.1% (95% CI 81.8-92.8).Conclusion: The PFN-CNN showed excellent performance in classifying typical PFNs. Its agreement with radiologically trained readers is within the range of inter-reader agreement. Thus, the CNN-based system has potential in clinical and screening settings to rule out perifissural nodules and increase reader efficiency.Key Points: • Agreement between the PFN-CNN and radiologically trained readers is within the range of inter-reader agreement. • The CNN model for the classification of typical PFNs achieved an AUC of 95.8% (95% CI 93.3-98.4) with 95.6% (95% CI 84.9-99.5) sensitivity and 88.1% (95% CI 81.8-92.8) specificity compared to the consensus of three readers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We investigated whether presence and characteristics of lung nodules in the general population using low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) varied by season. Imaging in Lifelines (ImaLife) study participants who underwent chest LDCT-scanning between October 2018 and October 2019 were included in this sub-study. Hay fever season (summer) was defined as 1st April to 30th September and Influenza season (winter) as 1st October to 31st March. All lung nodules with volume of ≥ 30 mm3 (approximately 3 mm in diameter) were registered. In total, 2496 lung nodules were found in 1312 (38%) of the 3456 included participants (nodules per participant ranging from 1 to 21, median 1). In summer, 711 (54%) participants had 1 or more lung nodule(s) compared to 601 (46%) participants in winter (p = 0.002). Of the spherical, perifissural and left-upper-lobe nodules, relatively more were detected in winter, whereas of the polygonal-, irregular-shaped and centrally-calcified nodules, relatively more were detected in summer. Various seasonal diseases with inflammation as underlying pathophysiology may influence presence and characteristics of lung nodules. Further investigation into underlying pathophysiology using short-term LDCT follow-up could help optimize the management strategy for CT-detected lung nodules in clinical practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• Our LCP-CNN was trained to rule out benign lung nodules with high accuracy. • Excellent performance on identification of benign nodules in an external dataset (sensitivity 99 %). • Malignancy could be ruled out in about 20 % of patients with 5−15 mm nodules using the LCP-CNN. Deep Learning has been proposed as promising tool to classify malignant nodules. Our aim was to retrospectively validate our Lung Cancer Prediction Convolutional Neural Network (LCP-CNN), which was trained on US screening data, on an independent dataset of indeterminate nodules in an European multicentre trial, to rule out benign nodules maintaining a high lung cancer sensitivity. The LCP-CNN has been trained to generate a malignancy score for each nodule using CT data from the U.S. National Lung Screening Trial (NLST), and validated on CT scans containing 2106 nodules (205 lung cancers) detected in patients from from the Early Lung Cancer Diagnosis Using Artificial Intelligence and Big Data (LUCINDA) study, recruited from three tertiary referral centers in the UK, Germany and Netherlands. We pre-defined a benign nodule rule-out test, to identify benign nodules whilst maintaining a high sensitivity, by calculating thresholds on the malignancy score that achieve at least 99 % sensitivity on the NLST data. Overall performance per validation site was evaluated using Area-Under-the-ROC-Curve analysis (AUC). The overall AUC across the European centers was 94.5 % (95 %CI 92.6–96.1). With a high sensitivity of 99.0 %, malignancy could be ruled out in 22.1 % of the nodules, enabling 18.5 % of the patients to avoid follow-up scans. The two false-negative results both represented small typical carcinoids. The LCP-CNN, trained on participants with lung nodules from the US NLST dataset, showed excellent performance on identification of benign lung nodules in a multi-center external dataset, ruling out malignancy with high accuracy in about one fifth of the patients with 5−15 mm nodules. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Rationale and Objectives: To describe the rational and design of a population-based comparative study. The objective of the study is to assess the screening performance of volume-based management of CT-detected lung nodule in comparison to diameter-based management, and to improve the effectiveness of CT screening for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and cardiovascular disease (CVD), in addition to lung cancer, based on quantitative measurement of CT imaging biomarkers in a Chinese screening setting.Materials and Methods: A population-based comparative study is being performed, including 10,000 asymptomatic participants between 40 and 74 years old from Shanghai urban population. Participants in the intervention group undergo a low-dose chest and cardiac CT scan at baseline and 1 year later, and are managed according to NELCIN-B3 protocol. Participants in the control group undergo a low-dose chest CT scan according to the routine CT protocol and are managed according to the clinical practice. Epidemiological data are collected through questionnaires. In the fourth year from baseline, the diagnosis of the three diseases will be collected.Results: The unnecessary referral rate will be compared between NELCIN-B3 and standard protocol for managing early-detected lung nodules. The effectiveness of quantitative measurement of CT imaging biomarkers for early detection of lung cancer, COPD and CVD will be evaluated.Conclusion: We expect that the quantitative assessment of the CT imaging biomarkers will reduce the number of unnecessary referrals for early detected lung nodules, and will improve the early detection of COPD and CVD in a Chinese urban population.Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03988322. Registered on 14 June 2019. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: To evaluate the characteristics and work-up of small to intermediate-sized pulmonary nodules in a Chinese dedicated cancer hospital. Methods: Patients with pulmonary nodules 4-25 mm in diameter detected via computed tomography (CT) in 2013 were consecutively included. The analysis was restricted to patients with a histological nodule diagnosis or a 2-year follow-up period without nodule growth confirming benign disease. Patient information was collected from hospital records. Results: Among the 314 nodules examined in 299 patients, 212 (67.5%) nodules in 206 (68.9%) patients were malignant. Compared to benign nodules, malignant nodules were larger (18.0 mm vs. 12.5 mm, P < 0.001), more often partly solid (16.0% vs. 4.7%, P < 0.001) and more often spiculated (72.2% vs. 41.2%, P < 0.001), with higher density in contrast-enhanced CT (67.0 HU vs. 57.5 HU, P = 0.015). Final diagnosis was based on surgery in 232 out of 314 (73.9%) nodules, 166 of which were identified as malignant [30 (18.1%) stage III or IV] and 66 as benign. In 36 nodules (11.5%), diagnosis was confirmed by biopsy and the remainder verified based on stability of nodule size at follow-up imaging (n = 46, 14.6%). Among 65 nodules subjected to gene (EGFR) mutation analyses, 28 (43.1%) cases (EGFR19 n = 13; EGFR21 n = 15) were identified as EGFR mutant and 37 (56.9%) as EGFR wild-type. Prior to surgery, the majority of patients [n = 194 (83.6%)] received a contrast-enhanced CT scan for staging of both malignant [n = 140 (84.3%)] and benign [n = 54 (81.8%)] nodules. Usage of positron emission tomography (PET)-CT was relatively uncommon [n = 38 (16.4%)]. Conclusions: CT-derived nodule assessment assists in diagnosis of small to intermediate- sized malignant pulmonary nodules. Currently, contrast-enhanced CT is commonly used as the sole diagnostic confirmation technique for pre-surgical staging, often resulting in surgery for late-stage disease and unnecessary surgery in cases of benign nodules. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The US guidelines recommend low-dose CT (LDCT) lung cancer screening for high-risk individuals. New solid nodules after baseline screening are common and have a high lung cancer probability. Currently, no evidence exists concerning the risk stratification of non-resolving new solid nodules at first LDCT screening after initial detection.Methods: In the Dutch-Belgian Randomized Lung Cancer Screening (NELSON) trial, 7295 participants underwent the second and 6922 participants the third screening round. We included participants with solid nodules that were registered as new or <15 mm³ (study detection limit) at previous screens and received additional screening after initial detection, thereby excluding high-risk nodules according to the NELSON management protocol (nodules ≥500 mm3).Results: Overall, 680 participants with 1020 low-risk and intermediate-risk new solid nodules were included. A total of 562 (55%) new solid nodules were resolving, leaving 356 (52%) participants with a non-resolving new solid nodule, of whom 25 (7%) were diagnosed with lung cancer. At first screening after initial detection, volume doubling time (VDT), volume, and VDT combined with a predefined ≥200 mm3 volume cut-off had high discrimination for lung cancer (VDT, area under the curve (AUC): 0.913; volume, AUC: 0.875; VDT and ≥200 mm3 combination, AUC: 0.939). Classifying a new solid nodule with either ≤590 days VDT or ≥200 mm3 volume positive provided 100% sensitivity, 84% specificity and 27% positive predictive value for lung cancer.Conclusions: More than half of new low-risk and intermediate-risk solid nodules in LDCT lung cancer screening resolve. At follow-up, growth assessment potentially combined with a volume limit can be used for risk stratification.Trial Registration Number: ISRCTN63545820; pre-results. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: European lung cancer screening studies using computed tomography (CT) have shown that a management protocol based on measuring lung nodule volume and volume doubling time (VDT) is more specific for early lung cancer detection than a diameter-based protocol. However, whether this also applies to a Chinese population is unclear. The aim of this study is to compare the diagnostic performance of a volume-based protocol with a diameter-based protocol for lung cancer detection and optimize the nodule management criteria for a Chinese population. Methods: This study has a population-based, prospective cohort design and includes 4000 participants from the Hexi district of Tianjin, China. Participants will undergo low-dose chest CT at baseline and after 1 year. Initially, detected lung nodules will be evaluated for diameter and managed according to a routine diameter-based protocol (Clinical Practice Guideline in Oncology for Lung Cancer Screening, Version 2.2018). Subsequently, lung nodules will be evaluated for volume and management will be simulated according to a volume-based protocol and VDT (a European lung nodule management protocol). Participants will be followed up for 4 years to evaluate lung cancer incidence and mortality. The primary outcome is the diagnostic performance of the European volume-based protocol compared to diameter-based management regarding lung nodules detected using low-dose CT. Results: The diagnostic performance of volume- and diameter-based management for lung nodules in a Chinese population will be estimated and compared. Conclusions: Through the study, we expect to improve the management of lung nodules and early detection of lung cancer in Chinese populations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Highlights • Around one fifth of participants presented with multiple new nodules. • An increased number of new nodules correlated with greater largest new nodule size. • When assessed with nodule size, new nodule count had a negative relationship with lung cancer. • The nodule count at baseline had no association with new nodule lung cancer. Abstract Background New nodules are regularly found after the baseline round of low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) lung cancer screening. The relationship between a participant's number of new nodules and lung cancer probability is unknown. Methods Participants of the ongoing Dutch-Belgian Randomized Lung Cancer Screening (NELSON) Trial with (sub)solid nodules detected after baseline and registered as new by the NELSON radiologists were included. The correlation between a participant's new nodule count and the largest new nodule size was assessed using Spearman's rank correlation. To evaluate the new nodule count as predictor for new nodule lung cancer together with largest new nodule size, a multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed. Results In total, 705 participants with 964 new nodules were included. In 48% (336/705) of participants no nodule had been found previously during baseline screening and in 22% (154/705) of participants >1 new nodule was detected (range 1–12 new nodules). Eventually, 9% (65/705) of the participants had lung cancer in a new nodule. In 100% (65/65) of participants with new nodule lung cancer, the lung cancer was the largest or only new nodule at initial detection. The new nodule lung cancer probability did not differ significantly between participants with 1 (10% [56/551], 95%CI 8–13%) or >1 new nodule (6% [9/154], 95%CI 3–11%, P =.116). An increased number of new nodules positively correlated with a participant's largest nodule size (P < 0.001, Spearman's rho 0.177). When adjusted for largest new nodule size, the new nodule count had a significant negative association with lung cancer (odds ratio 0.59, 0.37–0.95, P =.03). Conclusion A participant's new nodule count alone only has limited association with lung cancer. However, a higher new nodule count correlates with an increased largest new nodule size, while the lung cancer probability remains equivalent, and may improve lung cancer risk prediction by size only. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

To evaluate the influence of nodule margin on inter- and intrareader variability in manual diameter measurements and semi-automatic volume measurements of solid nodules detected in low-dose CT lung cancer screening. 25 nodules of each morphological category (smooth, lobulated, spiculated and irregular) were randomly selected from 93 participants of the Dutch-Belgian Randomized Lung Cancer Screening Trial (NELSON). Semi-automatic volume measurements were performed using Syngo LungCARE® software (Version Somaris/5 VB10A-W, Siemens, Forchheim, Germany). Three radiologists independently measured mean diameters manually. Impact of nodule margin on interreader variability was evaluated based on systematic error and 95% limits of agreement. Interreader variability was compared with the nodule growth cut-off as used in Lung CT Screening Reporting and Data System (LungRADS; +1.5-mm diameter) and the Dutch-Belgian Randomized Lung Cancer Screening Trial(acronym: NELSON) /British Thoracic Society (+25% volume). For manual diameter measurements, a significant systematic error (up to 1.2 mm) between readers was found in all morphological categories. For semi-automatic volume measurements, no statistically significant systematic error was found. The interreader variability in mean diameter measurements exceeded the 1.5-mm cut-off for nodule growth for all morphological categories [smooth: ±1.9 mm (+27%), lobulated: ±2.0 mm (+33%), spiculated: ±3.5 mm (+133%), irregular: ±4.5 mm (+200%)]. The 25% vol growth cut-off was exceeded slightly for spiculated [28% (+12%)] and irregular [27% (+8%)] nodules. Lung nodule sizing based on manual diameter measurement is affected by nodule margin. Interreader variability increases especially for nodules with spiculated and irregular margins, and causes substantial misclassification of nodule growth. This effect is almost neglectable for semi-automated volume measurements. Semi-automatic volume measurements are superior for both size and growth determination of pulmonary nodules. Nodule assessment based on manual diameter measurements is susceptible to nodule margin. This effect is almost neglectable for semi-automated volume measurements. The larger interreader variability for manual diameter measurement results in inaccurate lung nodule growth detection and size classification. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: New nodules after baseline are regularly found in low-dose CT lung cancer screening and have a high lung cancer probability. It is unknown whether morphological and location characteristics can improve new nodule risk stratification by size.Methods: Solid non-calcified nodules detected during incidence screening rounds of the randomised controlled Dutch-Belgian lung cancer screening (NELSON) trial and registered as new or previously below detection limit (15 mm3) were included. A multivariate logistic regression analysis with lung cancer as outcome was performed, including previously established volume cut-offs (<30 mm3, 30-<200 mm3 and ≥200 mm3) and nodule characteristics (location, distribution, shape, margin and visibility <15 mm3 in retrospect).Results: Overall, 1280 new nodules were included with 73 (6%) being lung cancer. Of nodules ≥30 mm3 at detection and visible <15 mm3 in retrospect, 22% (6/27) were lung cancer. Discrimination based on volume cut-offs (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC): 0.80, 95% CI 0.75 to 0.84) and continuous volume (AUC: 0.82, 95% CI 0.77 to 0.87) was similar. After adjustment for volume cut-offs, only location in the right upper lobe (OR 2.0, P=0.012), central distribution (OR 2.4, P=0.001) and visibility <15 mm3 in retrospect (OR 4.7, P=0.003) remained significant predictors for lung cancer. The Hosmer-Lemeshow test (P=0.75) and assessment of bootstrap calibration curves indicated adequate model fit. Discrimination based on the continuous model probability (AUC: 0.85, 95% CI 0.81 to 0.89) was superior to volume cut-offs alone, but when stratified into three risk groups (AUC: 0.82, 95% CI 0.78 to 0.86), discrimination was similar.Conclusion: Contrary to morphological nodule characteristics, growth-independent characteristics may further improve volume-based new nodule lung cancer prediction, but in a three-category stratification approach, this is limited.Trial Registration Number: ISRCTN63545820; pre-results. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives To explore the relationship between nodule count and lung cancer probability in baseline low-dose CT lung cancer screening. Materials and Methods Included were participants from the NELSON trial with at least one baseline nodule (3392 participants [45% of screen-group], 7258 nodules). We determined nodule count per participant. Malignancy was confirmed by histology. Nodules not diagnosed as screen-detected or interval cancer until the end of the fourth screening round were regarded as benign. We compared lung cancer probability per nodule count category. Results 1746 (51.5%) participants had one nodule, 800 (23.6%) had two nodules, 354 (10.4%) had three nodules, 191 (5.6%) had four nodules, and 301 (8.9%) had > 4 nodules. Lung cancer in a baseline nodule was diagnosed in 134 participants (139 cancers; 4.0%). Median nodule count in participants with only benign nodules was 1 (Inter-quartile range [IQR]: 1–2), and 2 (IQR 1–3) in participants with lung cancer (p = NS). At baseline, malignancy was detected mostly in the largest nodule (64/66 cancers). Lung cancer probability was 62/1746 (3.6%) in case a participant had one nodule, 33/800 (4.1%) for two nodules, 17/354 (4.8%) for three nodules, 12/191 (6.3%) for four nodules and 10/301 (3.3%) for > 4 nodules (p = NS). Conclusion In baseline lung cancer CT screening, half of participants with lung nodules have more than one nodule. Lung cancer probability does not significantly change with the number of nodules. Baseline nodule count will not help to differentiate between benign and malignant nodules. Each nodule found in lung cancer screening should be assessed separately independent of the presence of other nodules. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Debate about the optimal lung cancer screening strategy is ongoing. In this study, previous screening history of the Dutch-Belgian Lung Cancer Screening trial (NELSON) is investigated on if it predicts the screening outcome (test result and lung cancer risk) of the final screening round.Methods: 15 792 participants were randomised (1:1) of which 7900 randomised into a screening group. CT screening took place at baseline, and after 1, 2 and 2.5 years. Initially, three screening outcomes were possible: negative, indeterminate or positive scan result. Probability for screening outcome in the fourth round was calculated for subgroups of participants.Results: Based on results of the first three rounds, three subgroups were identified: (1) those with exclusively negative results (n=3856; 73.0%); (2) those with ≥1 indeterminate result, but never a positive result (n=1342; 25.5%); and (3) with ≥1 positive result (n=81; 1.5%). Group 1 had the highest probability for having a negative scan result in round 4 (97.2% vs 94.8% and 90.1%, respectively, p<0.001), and the lowest risk for detecting lung cancer in round 4 (0.6% vs 1.6%, p=0.001). 'Smoked pack-years' and 'screening history' significantly predicted the fourth round test result. The third round results implied that the risk for detecting lung cancer (after an interval of 2.5 years) was 0.6% for those with negative results compared with 3.7% of those with indeterminate results.Conclusions: Previous CT lung cancer screening results provides an opportunity for further risk stratifications of those who undergo lung cancer screening.Trial Registration Number: Results, ISRCTN63545820. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives Although exponential growth is assumed for lung cancer, this has never been quantified in vivo. Aim of this study was to evaluate and quantify growth patterns of lung cancers detected in the Dutch-Belgian low-dose computed tomography (CT) lung cancer screening trial (NELSON), in order to elucidate the development and progression of early lung cancer. Materials and methods Solid lung nodules found at ≥3 CT examinations before lung cancer diagnosis were included. Lung cancer volume ( V ) growth curves were fitted with a single exponential, expressed as V = V 1 exp( t / τ ), with t time from baseline (days), V 1 estimated baseline volume (mm 3 ), and τ estimated time constant. The R 2 coefficient of determination was used to evaluate goodness of fit. Overall volume-doubling time for the individual lung cancer is given by τ * log(2). Results Forty-seven lung cancers in 46 participants were included. Forty participants were male (87.0%); mean age was 61.7 years (standard deviation, 6.2 years). Median nodule size at baseline was 99.5 mm 3 (IQR: 46.8–261.8 mm 3 ). Nodules were followed for a median of 770 days (inter-quartile range: 383–1102 days) before lung cancer diagnosis. One cancer (2.1%) was diagnosed after six CT examinations, six cancers (12.8%) were diagnosed after five CTs, 14 (29.8%) after four CTs, and 26 cancers (55.3%) after three CTs. Lung cancer growth could be described by an exponential function with excellent goodness of fit ( R 2 0.98). Median overall volume-doubling time was 348 days (inter-quartile range: 222–492 days). Conclusion This study based on CT lung cancer screening provides in vivo evidence that growth of cancerous small-to-intermediate sized lung nodules detected at low-dose CT lung cancer screening can be described by an exponential function such as volume-doubling time. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: In the USA annual lung cancer screening is recommended. However, the optimal screening strategy (eg, screening interval, screening rounds) is unknown. This study provides results of the fourth screening round after a 2.5-year interval in the Dutch-Belgian Lung Cancer Screening trial (NELSON).Methods: Europe's largest, sufficiently powered randomised lung cancer screening trial was designed to determine whether low-dose CT screening reduces lung cancer mortality by ≥25% compared with no screening after 10 years of follow-up. The screening arm (n=7915) received screening at baseline, after 1 year, 2 years and 2.5 years. Performance of the NELSON screening strategy in the final fourth round was evaluated. Comparisons were made between lung cancers detected in the first three rounds, in the final round and during the 2.5-year interval.Results: In round 4, 46 cancers were screen-detected and there were 28 interval cancers between the third and fourth screenings. Compared with the second round screening (1-year interval), in round 4 a higher proportion of stage IIIb/IV cancers (17.3% vs 6.8%, p=0.02) and higher proportions of squamous-cell, bronchoalveolar and small-cell carcinomas (p=0.001) were detected. Compared with a 2-year interval, the 2.5-year interval showed a higher non-significant stage distribution (stage IIIb/IV 17.3% vs 5.2%, p=0.10). Additionally, more interval cancers manifested in the 2.5-year interval than in the intervals of previous rounds (28 vs 5 and 28 vs 19).Conclusions: A 2.5-year interval reduced the effect of screening: the interval cancer rate was higher compared with the 1-year and 2-year intervals, and proportion of advanced disease stage in the final round was higher compared with the previous rounds.Trial Registration Number: ISRCTN63545820. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: US guidelines now recommend lung cancer screening with low-dose CT for high-risk individuals. Reports of new nodules after baseline screening have been scarce and are inconsistent because of differences in definitions used. We aimed to identify the occurrence of new solid nodules and their probability of being lung cancer at incidence screening rounds in the Dutch-Belgian Randomized Lung Cancer Screening Trial (NELSON).Methods: In the ongoing, multicentre, randomised controlled NELSON trial, between Dec 23, 2003, and July 6, 2006, 15 822 participants who had smoked at least 15 cigarettes a day for more than 25 years or ten cigarettes a day for more than 30 years and were current smokers, or had quit smoking less than 10 years ago, were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive either screening with low-dose CT (n=7915) or no screening (n=7907). From Jan 28, 2004, to Dec 18, 2006, 7557 individuals underwent baseline screening with low-dose CT; 7295 participants underwent second and third screening rounds. We included all participants with solid non-calcified nodules, registered by the NELSON radiologists as new or smaller than 15 mm(3) (study detection limit) at previous screens. Nodule volume was generated semiautomatically by software. We calculated the maximum volume doubling time for nodules with an estimated percentage volume change of 25% or more, representing the minimum growth rate for the time since the previous scan. Lung cancer diagnosis was based on histology, and benignity was based on histology or stable size for at least 2 years. The NELSON trial is registered at trialregister.nl, number ISRCTN63545820.Findings: We analysed data for participants with at least one solid non-calcified nodule at the second or third screening round. In the two incidence screening rounds, the NELSON radiologists registered 1222 new solid nodules in 787 (11%) participants. A new solid nodule was lung cancer in 49 (6%) participants with new solid nodules and, in total, 50 lung cancers were found, representing 4% of all new solid nodules. 34 (68%) lung cancers were diagnosed at stage I. Nodule volume had a high discriminatory power (area under the receiver operating curve 0·795 [95% CI 0·728-0·862]; p<0·0001). Nodules smaller than 27 mm(3) had a low probability of lung cancer (two [0·5%] of 417 nodules; lung cancer probability 0·5% [95% CI 0·0-1·9]), nodules with a volume of 27 mm(3) up to 206 mm(3) had an intermediate probability (17 [3·1%] of 542 nodules; lung cancer probability 3·1% [1·9-5·0]), and nodules of 206 mm(3) or greater had a high probability (29 [16·9%] of 172 nodules; lung cancer probability 16·9% [12·0-23·2]). A volume cutoff value of 27 mm(3) or greater had more than 95% sensitivity for lung cancer.Interpretation: Our study shows that new solid nodules are detected at each screening round in 5-7% of individuals who undergo screening for lung cancer with low-dose CT. These new nodules have a high probability of malignancy even at a small size. These findings should be considered in future screening guidelines, and new solid nodules should be followed up more aggressively than nodules detected at baseline screening.Funding: Zorgonderzoek Nederland Medische Wetenschappen and Koningin Wilhelmina Fonds Kankerbestrijding. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We studied 2240 indeterminate solid nodules (volume 50-500mm3) to determine the correlation of diameter and semi-automated volume measurements for pulmonary nodule size estimation. Intra-nodular diameter variation, defined as maximum minus minimum diameter through the nodule's center, varied by 2.8 mm (median, IQR:2.2-3.7 mm), so above the 1.5 mm cutoff for nodule growth used in Lung CT Screening Reporting and Data System (Lung-RADS). Using mean or maximum axial diameter to assess nodule volume led to a substantial mean overestimation of nodule volume of 47.2% and 85.1%, respectively, compared to semi-automated volume. Thus, size of indeterminate nodules is poorly represented by diameter.Trial Registration Number: Pre-results, ISRCTN63545820. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Early diagnosis of lung cancer in a treatable stage is the main purpose of lung cancer screening by computed tomography (CT). Accurate three-dimensional size and growth measurements are essential to assess the risk of malignancy. Nodule volumes can be calculated by using semi-automated volumetric software. Systematic differences in volume measurements between packages could influence nodule categorization and management decisions. Purpose: To compare volumetric measurements of solid pulmonary nodules on baseline and follow-up CT scans as well as the volume doubling time (VDT) for three software packages. Material and Methods: From a Lung Cancer Screening study (NELSON), 50 participants were randomly selected from the baseline round. The study population comprised participants with at least one pulmonary nodule at the baseline and consecutive CT examination. The volume of each nodule was determined for both time points using three semi-automated software packages (P1, P2, and P3). Manual modification was performed when automated assessment was visually inaccurate. VDT was calculated to evaluate nodule growth. Volume, VDT, and nodule management were compared for the three software packages, using P1 as the reference standard. Results: In 25 participants, 147 nodules were present on both examinations (volume: 12.0-436.6 mm(3)). Initial segmentation at baseline was evaluated to be satisfactory in 93.9% of nodules for P1, 84.4 % for P2, and 88.4% for P3. Significant difference was found in measured volume between P1 and the other two packages (P < 0.001). P2 overestimated the volume by 38 ± 24%, and P3 by 50 ± 22%. At baseline, there was consensus on nodule size categorization in 80% for P1&P2 and 74% for P1&P3. At follow-up, consensus on VDT categorization was present in 47% for P1&P2 and 44% for P1&P3. Conclusion: Software packages for lung nodule evaluation yield significant differences in volumetric measurements and VDT. This variation affects the classification of lung nodules, especially in follow-up examinations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Lung cancer screening with low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) reduces lung cancer mortality. The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of lung cancer screening with LDCT in a high-risk population. The study used an adapted microsimulation model in a cohort of Dutch heavy smokers for a lifetime horizon from a health insurance perspective. The main outcomes included average cost-effectiveness ratio (ACER), incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) and lung cancer mortality reduction. The comparator was no screening. Scenarios with different screening intervals and starting and stopping ages were evaluated for 100,000 male heavy smokers and 100,000 female heavy smokers. A cost-effectiveness threshold of 60 k€ per life year gained (LYG) was assumed acceptable. The evaluated screening scenarios yielded ACERs ranging from 17.7 to 32.4 k€/LYG for men and from 17.8 to 32.1 k€/LYG for women. The lung cancer mortality reduction ranged from 9.3% to 16.8% for men and from 7.8% to 13.7% for women. The optimal screening scenario was annual screening from 55 to 80 years for men and biennial screening from 50 to 80 years for women, with an ICER of 51.6 and 45.8 k€ per LYG compared with its previous efficient alternative, respectively. Compared with no screening, the optimal screening scenario yielded an ICER of 27.6 k€/LYG for men and 21.1 k€/LYG for women. The mortality reduction of lung cancer was 15.9% for men and 10.6% for women. Lung cancer LDCT screening is cost-effective in a high-risk population. The optimal screening scenario is dependent on sex. • Lung cancer screening with low-dose computed tomography in a high-risk population is cost-effective. • The optimal strategy for men is annual screening from the age of 55 to 80 years, with a cost of 27.6 k€/LYG. • The optimal strategy for women is biennial screening from the age of 50 to 80 years, with a cost of 21.1 k€/LYG. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Aim was to assess CT characteristics of lung nodules in never and former smokers compared to current smokers in a population-based setting.Method: We included individuals aged 45-60 years taking part in the ImaLife (Imaging in Lifelines) study, with at least one solid lung nodule (≥30 mm3) on low-dose chest CT. Qualitative (location, shape, margin, nodule type, attached structures) and quantitative (count, diameter, volume) nodule characteristics were evaluated. Based on Fleischner criteria, 'high risk' nodules were defined. To examine the association between smoking status and nodule CT characteristics of participants, multi-level multinomial logistic regression corrected for clustering of nodules within participants was performed, where all odds ratios (aORs) were adjusted for age and sex.Results: Overall, 1,639 individuals (median age: 55.0, IQR:50.5-58.5, 50.5% men) were included, with 42.1% never smokers, 35.3% former smokers and 22.6% current smokers. A total of 3,222 solid nodules were identified; 39.7% of individuals had multiple nodules. Nodule size, location, type and attachment were similar for never compared to current smokers. The odds of nodules with an irregular shape and irregular margin was lower in never smokers (aOR:0.64, 95 %CI:0.44-0.93; aOR:0.60, 95 %CI:0.41-0.88, respectively) and former smokers (aOR:0.61, 95 %CI:0.41-0.90; aOR:0.57, 95 %CI:0.38-0.85, respectively) compared to current smokers. The odds of a detected nodule being 'high risk' was similar for never versus current smokers (never smokers: aOR = 0.90; 95% CI:0.73-1.11).Conclusions: CT-based characteristics of solid lung nodules in never and former smokers differed only slightly from current smokers. Among individuals with solid nodules, 'high-risk' nodules were equally common in never smokers and current smokers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Summary Background The main challenge in CT screening for lung cancer is the high prevalence of pulmonary nodules and the relatively low incidence of lung cancer. Management protocols use thresholds for nodule size and growth rate to determine which nodules require additional diagnostic procedures, but these should be based on individuals' probabilities of developing lung cancer. In this prespecified analysis, using data from the NELSON CT screening trial, we aimed to quantify how nodule diameter, volume, and volume doubling time affect the probability of developing lung cancer within 2 years of a CT scan, and to propose and evaluate thresholds for management protocols. Methods Eligible participants in the NELSON trial were those aged 50–75 years, who have smoked 15 cigarettes or more per day for more than 25 years, or ten cigarettes or more for more than 30 years and were still smoking, or had stopped smoking less than 10 years ago. Participants were randomly assigned to low-dose CT screening at increasing intervals, or no screening. We included all participants assigned to the screening group who had attended at least one round of screening, and whose results were available from the national cancer registry database. We calculated lung cancer probabilities, stratified by nodule diameter, volume, and volume doubling time and did logistic regression analysis using diameter, volume, volume doubling time, and multinodularity as potential predictor variables. We assessed management strategies based on nodule threshold characteristics for specificity and sensitivity, and compared them to the American College of Chest Physicians (ACCP) guidelines. The NELSON trial is registered at www.trialregister.nl , number ISRCTN63545820. Findings Volume, volume doubling time, and volumetry-based diameter of 9681 non-calcified nodules detected by CT screening in 7155 participants in the screening group of NELSON were used to quantify lung cancer probability. Lung cancer probability was low in participants with a nodule volume of 100 mm 3 or smaller (0·6% [95% CI 0·4–0·8]) or maximum transverse diameter smaller than 5 mm (0·4% [0·2–0·7]), and not significantly different from participants without nodules (0·4% [0·3–0·6], p=0·17 and p=1·00, respectively). Lung cancer probability was intermediate (requiring follow-up CT) if nodules had a volume of 100–300 mm 3 (2·4% [95% CI 1·7–3·5]) or a diameter 5–10 mm (1·3% [1·0–1·8]). Volume doubling time further stratified the probabilities: 0·8% (95% CI 0·4–1·7) for volume doubling times 600 days or more, 4·0% (1·8–8·3) for volume doubling times 400–600 days, and 9·9% (6·9–14·1) for volume doubling times of 400 days or fewer. Lung cancer probability was high for participants with nodule volumes 300 mm 3 or bigger (16·9% [95% CI 14·1–20·0]) or diameters 10 mm or bigger (15·2% [12·7–18·1]). The simulated ACCP management protocol yielded a sensitivity and specificity of 90·9% (95% CI 81·2–96·1), and 87·2% (86·4–87·9), respectively. A diameter-based protocol with volumetry-based nodule diameter yielded a higher sensitivity (92·4% [95% CI 83·1–97·1]), and a higher specificity (90·0% [89·3–90·7). A volume-based protocol (with thresholds based on lung cancer probability) yielded the same sensitivity as the ACCP protocol (90·9% [95% CI 81·2–96·1]), and a higher specificity (94·9% [94·4–95·4]). Interpretation Small nodules (those with a volume <100 mm 3 or diameter <5 mm) are not predictive for lung cancer. Immediate diagnostic evaluation is necessary for large nodules (≥300 mm 3 or ≥10 mm). Volume doubling time assessment is advo [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To evaluate the performance of a deep learning-based computer-aided detection (DL-CAD) system in a Chinese low-dose CT (LDCT) lung cancer screening program.Materials and Methods: One-hundred-and-eighty individuals with a lung nodule on their baseline LDCT lung cancer screening scan were randomly mixed with screenees without nodules in a 1:1 ratio (total: 360 individuals). All scans were assessed by double reading and subsequently processed by an academic DL-CAD system. The findings of double reading and the DL-CAD system were then evaluated by two senior radiologists to derive the reference standard. The detection performance was evaluated by the Free Response Operating Characteristic curve, sensitivity and false-positive (FP) rate. The senior radiologists categorized nodules according to nodule diameter, type (solid, part-solid, non-solid) and Lung-RADS.Results: The reference standard consisted of 262 nodules ≥ 4 mm in 196 individuals; 359 findings were considered false positives. The DL-CAD system achieved a sensitivity of 90.1% with 1.0 FP/scan for detection of lung nodules regardless of size or type, whereas double reading had a sensitivity of 76.0% with 0.04 FP/scan (P = 0.001). The sensitivity for detection of nodules ≥ 4 - ≤ 6 mm was significantly higher with DL-CAD than with double reading (86.3% vs. 58.9% respectively; P = 0.001). Sixty-three nodules were only identified by the DL-CAD system, and 27 nodules only found by double reading. The DL-CAD system reached similar performance compared to double reading in Lung-RADS 3 (94.3% vs. 90.0%, P = 0.549) and Lung-RADS 4 nodules (100.0% vs. 97.0%, P = 1.000), but showed a higher sensitivity in Lung-RADS 2 (86.2% vs. 65.4%, P < 0.001).Conclusions: The DL-CAD system can accurately detect pulmonary nodules on LDCT, with an acceptable false-positive rate of 1 nodule per scan and has higher detection performance than double reading. This DL-CAD system may assist radiologists in nodule detection in LDCT lung cancer screening. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Fleischner society criteria are global criteria to visually evaluate and classify pulmonary emphysema on CT. It may group heterogeneous disease severity within the same category, potentially obscuring clinically relevant differences in emphysema severity. This proof-of-concept study proposes to split emphysema into more categories and to assess each lobe separately, and applies this to two general population-based cohort samples to assess what information such an extension adds. From a consecutive sample in two general population-based cohorts with low-dose chest CT, 117 participants with more than a trace of emphysema were included. Two independent readers performed an extended per-lobe classification and assessed overall severity semi-quantitatively. An emphysema sum score was determined by adding the severity score of all lobes. Inter-reader agreement was quantified with Krippendorff Alpha. Based on Fleischner society criteria, 69 cases had mild to severe centrilobular emphysema, and 90 cases had mild or moderate paraseptal emphysema (42 had both types of emphysema). The emphysema sum score was significantly different between mild (10.7 ± 4.3, range 2–22), moderate (20.1 ± 3.1, range: 15–24), and severe emphysema (23.6 ± 3.4, range: 17–28, p < 0.001), but ranges showed significant overlap. Inter-reader agreement for the extended classification and sum score was substantial (alpha 0.79 and 0.85, respectively). Distribution was homogenous across lobes in never-smokers, yet heterogenous in current smokers, with upper-lobe predominance. The proposed emphysema evaluation method adds information to the original Fleischner society classification. Individuals in the same Fleischner category have diverse emphysema sum scores, and lobar emphysema distribution differs between smoking groups. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Summary Background Low-dose CT screening is recommended for individuals at high risk of developing lung cancer. However, CT screening does not detect all lung cancers: some might be missed at screening, and others can develop in the interval between screens. The NELSON trial is a randomised trial to assess the effect of screening with increasing screening intervals on lung cancer mortality. In this prespecified analysis, we aimed to assess screening test performance, and the epidemiological, radiological, and clinical characteristics of interval cancers in NELSON trial participants assigned to the screening group. Methods Eligible participants in the NELSON trial were those aged 50–75 years, who had smoked 15 or more cigarettes per day for more than 25 years or ten or more cigarettes for more than 30 years, and were still smoking or had quit less than 10 years ago. We included all participants assigned to the screening group who had attended at least one round of screening. Screening test results were based on volumetry using a two-step approach. Initially, screening test results were classified as negative, indeterminate, or positive based on nodule presence and volume. Subsequently, participants with an initial indeterminate result underwent follow-up screening to classify their final screening test result as negative or positive, based on nodule volume doubling time. We obtained information about all lung cancer diagnoses made during the first three rounds of screening, plus an additional 2 years of follow-up from the national cancer registry. We determined epidemiological, radiological, participant, and tumour characteristics by reassessing medical files, screening CTs, and clinical CTs. The NELSON trial is registered at www.trialregister.nl , number ISRCTN63545820. Findings 15 822 participants were enrolled in the NELSON trial, of whom 7915 were assigned to low-dose CT screening with increasing interval between screens, and 7907 to no screening. We included 7155 participants in our study, with median follow-up of 8·16 years (IQR 7·56–8·56). 187 (3%) of 7155 screened participants were diagnosed with 196 screen-detected lung cancers, and another 34 (<1%; 19 [56%] in the first year after screening, and 15 [44%] in the second year after screening) were diagnosed with 35 interval cancers. For the three screening rounds combined, with a 2-year follow-up, sensitivity was 84·6% (95% CI 79·6–89·2), specificity was 98·6% (95% CI 98·5–98·8), positive predictive value was 40·4% (95% CI 35·9–44·7), and negative predictive value was 99·8% (95% CI 99·8–99·9). Retrospective assessment of the last screening CT and clinical CT in 34 patients with interval cancer showed that interval cancers were not visible in 12 (35%) cases. In the remaining cases, cancers were visible when retrospectively assessed, but were not diagnosed because of radiological detection and interpretation errors (17 [50%]), misclassification by the protocol (two [6%]), participant non-compliance (two [6%]), and non-adherence to protocol (one [3%]). Compared with screen-detected cancers, interval cancers were diagnosed at more advanced stages (29 [83%] of 35 interval cancers vs 44 [22%] of 196 screen-detected cancers diagnosed in stage III or IV; p<0·0001), were more often small-cell carcinomas (seven [20%] vs eight [4%]; p=0·003) and less often adenocarcinomas (nine [26%] vs 102 [52%]; p=0·005). Interpretation Lung cancer screening in the NELSON trial yielded high specificity and sensitivity, with only a small number of interval cancers. The results of this study could be used to improve screening algorithms, and reduce the number of missed cancers. Funding Zorgonderzoek Nederland Medische Wetenschappen and Koningin Wilhelmina Fonds. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]