Search

Objectives: Lung-RADS represents a categorical system published by the American College of Radiology to standardise management in lung cancer screening. The purpose of the study was to quantify how well readers agree in assigning Lung-RADS categories to screening CTs; secondary goals were to assess causes of disagreement and evaluate its impact on patient management.Methods: For the observer study, 80 baseline and 80 follow-up scans were randomly selected from the NLST trial covering all Lung-RADS categories in an equal distribution. Agreement of seven observers was analysed using Cohen's kappa statistics. Discrepancies were correlated with patient management, test performance and diagnosis of malignancy within the scan year.Results: Pairwise interobserver agreement was substantial (mean kappa 0.67, 95% CI 0.58-0.77). Lung-RADS category disagreement was seen in approximately one-third (29%, 971) of 3360 reading pairs, resulting in different patient management in 8% (278/3360). Out of the 91 reading pairs that referred to scans with a tumour diagnosis within 1 year, discrepancies in only two would have resulted in a substantial management change.Conclusions: Assignment of lung cancer screening CT scans to Lung-RADS categories achieves substantial interobserver agreement. Impact of disagreement on categorisation of malignant nodules was low.Key Points: • Lung-RADS categorisation of low-dose lung screening CTs achieved substantial interobserver agreement. • Major cause for disagreement was assigning a different nodule as risk-dominant. • Disagreement led to a different follow-up time in 8% of reading pairs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: To compare the PanCan model, Lung-RADS and the 1.2016 National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines for discriminating malignant from benign pulmonary nodules on baseline screening CT scans and the impact diameter measurement methods have on performances.Methods: From the Danish Lung Cancer Screening Trial database, 64 CTs with malignant nodules and 549 baseline CTs with benign nodules were included. Performance of the systems was evaluated applying the system's original diameter definitions: Dlongest-C (PanCan), DmeanAxial (NCCN), both obtained from axial sections, and Dmean3D (Lung-RADS). Subsequently all diameter definitions were applied uniformly to all systems. Areas under the ROC curves (AUC) were used to evaluate risk discrimination.Results: PanCan performed superiorly to Lung-RADS and NCCN (AUC 0.874 vs. 0.813, p = 0.003; 0.874 vs. 0.836, p = 0.010), using the original diameter specifications. When uniformly applying Dlongest-C, Dmean3D and DmeanAxial, PanCan remained superior to Lung-RADS (p < 0.001 - p = 0.001) and NCCN (p < 0.001 - p = 0.016). Diameter definition significantly influenced NCCN's performance with Dlongest-C being the worst (Dlongest-C vs. Dmean3D, p = 0.005; Dlongest-C vs. DmeanAxial, p = 0.016).Conclusions: Without follow-up information, the PanCan model performs significantly superiorly to Lung-RADS and the 1.2016 NCCN guidelines for discriminating benign from malignant nodules. The NCCN guidelines are most sensitive to nodule size definition.Key Points: • PanCan model outperforms Lung-RADS and 1.2016 NCCN guidelines in identifying malignant pulmonary nodules. • Nodule size definition had no significant impact on Lung-RADS and PanCan model. • 1.2016 NCCN guidelines were significantly superior when using mean diameter to longest diameter. • Longest diameter achieved lowest performance for all models. • Mean diameter performed equivalently when derived from axial sections and from volumetry. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]