Search

Purpose To evaluate the feasibility of leveraging serial low-dose CT (LDCT) scans to develop a radiomics-based reinforcement learning (RRL) model for improving early diagnosis of lung cancer at baseline screening. Materials and Methods In this retrospective study, 1951 participants (female patients, 822; median age, 61 years [range, 55-74 years]) (male patients, 1129; median age, 62 years [range, 55-74 years]) were randomly selected from the National Lung Screening Trial between August 2002 and April 2004. An RRL model using serial LDCT scans (S-RRL) was trained and validated using data from 1404 participants (372 with lung cancer) containing 2525 available serial LDCT scans up to 3 years. A baseline RRL (B-RRL) model was trained with only LDCT scans acquired at baseline screening for comparison. The 547 held-out individuals (150 with lung cancer) were used as an independent test set for performance evaluation. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) and the net reclassification index (NRI) were used to assess the performances of the models in the classification of screen-detected nodules. Results Deployment to the held-out baseline scans showed that the S-RRL model achieved a significantly higher test AUC (0.88 [95% CI: 0.85, 0.91]) than both the Brock model (AUC, 0.84 [95% CI: 0.81, 0.88]; P = .02) and the B-RRL model (AUC, 0.86 [95% CI: 0.83, 0.90]; P = .02). Lung cancer risk stratification was significantly improved by the S-RRL model as compared with Lung CT Screening Reporting and Data System (NRI, 0.29; P < .001) and the Brock model (NRI, 0.12; P = .008). Conclusion The S-RRL model demonstrated the potential to improve early diagnosis and risk stratification for lung cancer at baseline screening as compared with the B-RRL model and clinical models. Keywords: Radiomics-based Reinforcement Learning, Lung Cancer Screening, Low-Dose CT, Machine Learning © RSNA, 2024 Supplemental material is available for this article.

Low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) screening for lung cancer substantially reduces mortality from lung cancer, as revealed in randomized controlled trials and meta-analyses. This review is based on the ninth CT screening symposium of the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer, which focuses on the major themes pertinent to the successful global implementation of LDCT screening and develops a strategy to further the implementation of lung cancer screening globally. These recommendations provide a 5-year roadmap to advance the implementation of LDCT screening globally, including the following: (1) establish universal screening program quality indicators; (2) establish evidence-based criteria to identify individuals who have never smoked but are at high-risk of developing lung cancer; (3) develop recommendations for incidentally detected lung nodule tracking and management protocols to complement programmatic lung cancer screening; (4) Integrate artificial intelligence and biomarkers to increase the prediction of malignancy in suspicious CT screen-detected lesions; and (5) standardize high-quality performance artificial intelligence protocols that lead to substantial reductions in costs, resource utilization and radiologist reporting time; (6) personalize CT screening intervals on the basis of an individual's lung cancer risk; (7) develop evidence to support clinical management and cost-effectiveness of other identified abnormalities on a lung cancer screening CT; (8) develop publicly accessible, easy-to-use geospatial tools to plan and monitor equitable access to screening services; and (9) establish a global shared education resource for lung cancer screening CT to ensure high-quality reading and reporting., (Copyright © 2023 International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Editor's Note. - RadioGraphics Update articles supplement or update information found in full-length articles previously published in RadioGraphics . These updates, written by at least one author of the previous article, provide a brief synopsis that emphasizes important new information such as technological advances, revised imaging protocols, new clinical guidelines involving imaging, or updated classification schemes.

Background: Lung cancer screening (LCS) with low-dose CT (LDCT) imaging was recommended in 2013, making approximately 8 million Americans eligible for LCS. The demographic characteristics and outcomes of individuals screened in the United States have not been reported at the population level., Research Question: What are the outcomes among people screened and entered in the American College of Radiology's Lung Cancer Screening Registry compared with those of trial participants?, Study Design and Methods: This was a cohort study of individuals undergoing baseline LDCT imaging for LCS between 2015 and 2019. Predictors of adherence to annual screening were computed. LDCT scan interpretations by Lung Imaging Reporting and Data System (Lung-RADS) score, cancer detection rates (CDRs), and stage at diagnosis were compared with National Lung Cancer Screening Trial data., Results: Adherence was 22.3%, and predictors of poor adherence included current smoking status and Hispanic or Black race. On baseline screening, 83% of patients showed negative results and 17% showed positive screening results. The overall CDR was 0.56%. The percentage of people with cancer detected at baseline was higher in the positive Lung-RADS categories at 0.4% for Lung-RADS category 3, 2.6% for Lung-RADS category 4A, 11.1% for Lung-RADS category 4B, and 19.9% for Lung-RADS category 4X. The cancer stage distribution was similar to that observed in the National Lung Cancer Screening Trial, with 53.5% of patients receiving a diagnosis of stage I cancer and 14.3% with stage IV cancer. Underreporting into the registry may have occurred., Interpretation: This study revealed both the positive aspects of CT scan screening for lung cancer and the challenges that remain. Findings on CT imaging were correlated accurately with lung cancer detection using the Lung-RADS system. A significant stage shift toward early-stage lung cancer was present. Adherence to LCS was poor and likely contributes to the lower than expected cancer detection rate, all of which will impact the outcomes of patients undergoing screening for lung cancer., (Copyright © 2023 American College of Chest Physicians. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: The US Preventive Services Task Force has recommended lung cancer screening (LCS) with low-dose CT (LDCT) in high-risk individuals since 2013. Because LDCT encompasses the lower neck, chest, and upper abdomen, many incidental findings (IFs) are detected. The authors created a quick reference guide to describe common IFs in LCS to assist LCS program navigators and ordering providers in managing the care continuum in LCS., Methods: The ACR IF white papers were reviewed for findings on LDCT that were age appropriate for LCS. A draft guide was created on the basis of recommendations in the IF white papers, the medical literature, and input from subspecialty content experts. The draft was piloted with LCS program navigators recruited through contacts by the ACR LCS Steering Committee. The navigators completed a survey on overall usefulness, clarity, adequacy of content, and user experience with the guide., Results: Seven anatomic regions including 15 discrete organs with 45 management recommendations were identified as relevant to the age of individuals eligible for LCS. The draft was piloted by 49 LCS program navigators from 32 facilities. The guide was rated as useful and clear by 95% of users. No unexpected or adverse experiences were reported in using the guide. On the basis of feedback, relevant sections were reviewed and edited., Conclusions: The ACR Lung Cancer Screening CT Incidental Findings Quick Reference Guide outlines the common IFs in LCS and can serve as an easy-to-use resource for ordering providers and LCS program navigators to help guide management., (Copyright © 2022 American College of Radiology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Lung cancer is a leading cause of cancer death in the United States and globally with the majority of lung cancer cases attributable to cigarette smoking. Given the high societal and personal cost of a diagnosis of lung cancer including that most cases of lung cancer when diagnosed are found at a late stage, work over the past 40 years has aimed to detect lung cancer earlier when curative treatment is possible. Screening trials using chest radiography and sputum failed to show a reduction in lung cancer mortality however multiple studies using low dose CT have shown the ability to detect lung cancer early and a survival benefit to those screened. This review will discuss the history of lung cancer screening, current recommendations and screening guidelines, and implementation and components of a lung cancer screening program., Competing Interests: None declared., (Thieme. All rights reserved.)

Background: Lung cancer screening (LCS) with low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) was recommended by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) in 2013, making approximately 8 million Americans eligible for screening. The demographic characteristics and adherence of persons screened in the United States have not been reported at the population level., Objective: To define sociodemographic characteristics and adherence among persons screened and entered into the American College of Radiology's Lung Cancer Screening Registry (LCSR)., Design: Cohort study., Setting: United States, 2015 to 2019., Participants: Persons receiving a baseline LDCT for LCS from 3625 facilities reporting to the LCSR., Measurements: Age, sex, and smoking status distributions (percentages) were computed among persons who were screened and among respondents in the 2015 National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) who were eligible for screening. The prevalence between the LCSR and the NHIS was compared with prevalence ratios (PRs) and 95% CIs. Adherence to annual screening was defined as having a follow-up test within 11 to 15 months of an initial LDCT., Results: Among 1 159 092 persons who were screened, 90.8% ( n = 1 052 591) met the USPSTF eligibility criteria. Compared with adults from the NHIS who met the criteria ( n = 1257), screening recipients in the LCSR were older (34.7% vs. 44.8% were aged 65 to 74 years; PR, 1.29 [95% CI, 1.20 to 1.39]), more likely to be female (41.8% vs. 48.1%; PR, 1.15 [CI, 1.08 to 1.23]), and more likely to currently smoke (52.3% vs. 61.4%; PR, 1.17 [CI, 1.11 to 1.23]). Only 22.3% had a repeated annual LDCT. If follow-up was extended to 24 months and more than 24 months, 34.3% and 40.3% were adherent, respectively., Limitations: Underreporting of LCS and missing data may skew demographic characteristics of persons reported to be screened. Underreporting of adherence may result in underestimates of follow-up., Conclusion: Approximately 91% of persons who had LCS met USPSTF eligibility criteria. In addition to continuing to target all eligible adults, men, those who formerly smoked, and younger eligible patients may be less likely to be screened. Adherence to annual follow-up screening was poor, potentially limiting screening effectiveness., Primary Funding Source: None.

The NCCN Guidelines for Lung Cancer Screening recommend criteria for selecting individuals for screening and provide recommendations for evaluation and follow-up of lung nodules found during initial and subsequent screening. These NCCN Guidelines Insights focus on recent updates to the NCCN Guidelines for Lung Cancer Screening.

Background: Although recommended lung cancer screening with low-dose computed tomography scanning (LDCT) reduces mortality among high-risk adults, annual screening rates remain low. This study complements a previous nationwide assessment of access to lung cancer screening within 40 miles by evaluating differences in accessibility across rural and urban settings for the population aged 50 to 80 years and a subset eligible population based on the 2021 US Preventive Services Task Force LDCT lung screening recommendations., Methods: Distances from population centers to screening facilities (American College of Radiology Lung Cancer Screening Registry) were calculated, and the number of individuals who had access within graduating distances, including 10, 20, 40, 50, and 100 miles, were estimated. Census tract results were aggregated to counties, and both geographies were classified with rural-urban schemas., Results: Approximately 5% of the eligible population did not have access to lung cancer screening facilities within 40 miles; however, different patterns of accessibility were observed at different distances, between regions, and across rural-urban environments. Across all distances and geographies, there was a larger percentage of the population in rural geographies with no access. Although the rural population represented approximately 8% of the eligible population, the larger percentage of the rural population with no access was noteworthy and translated into a larger number of individuals with no access at longer distance thresholds (≥40 miles)., Conclusions: Disparities in access should be examined as both percentages of the population and numbers of individuals with no access in order to tailor interventions to communities and increase access. Geospatial analysis at the census tract level is recommended to help to identify optimal focus areas and reach the most people., Lay Summary: As annual lung cancer screening rates remain low, this study examines access to lung cancer screening nationwide and across rural and urban settings. A geographic information system network analysis of census tract-level populations is used to estimate access at different distances, including 10, 20, 40, 50, and 100 miles, and the results are aggregated to counties. Approximately 5% of the eligible population does not have access to screening facilities within 40 miles; however, different patterns of accessibility are observed at different distances, between regions, and across rural-urban environments. Across all distances and geographies, there is a larger percentage of the population in rural geographies with no access., (© 2021 American Cancer Society.)

After the results of two large, randomized trials, the global implementation of lung cancer screening is of utmost importance. However, coronavirus disease 2019 infections occurring at heightened levels during the current global pandemic and also other respiratory infections can influence scan interpretation and screening safety and uptake. Several respiratory infections can lead to lesions that mimic malignant nodules and other imaging changes suggesting malignancy, leading to an increased level of follow-up procedures or even invasive diagnostic procedures. In periods of increased rates of respiratory infections from severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 and others, there is also a risk of transmission of these infections to the health care providers, the screenees, and patients. This became evident with the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 pandemic that led to a temporary global stoppage of lung cancer and other cancer screening programs. Data on the optimal management of these situations are not available. The pandemic is still ongoing and further periods of increased respiratory infections will come, in which practical guidance would be helpful. The aims of this report were: (1) to summarize the data available for possible false-positive results owing to respiratory infections; (2) to evaluate the safety concerns for screening during times of increased respiratory infections, especially during a regional outbreak or an epidemic or pandemic event; (3) to provide guidance on these situations; and (4) to stimulate research and discussions about these scenarios., (Copyright © 2021 International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Annual lung cancer screening (LCS) with low-dose chest computed tomography in older current and former smokers (ie, eligible adults) has been recommended since 2013. Uptake has been slow and variable across the United States. We estimated the LCS rate and growth at the national and state level between 2016 and 2018., Methods: The American College of Radiology's Lung Cancer Screening Registry was used to capture screening events. Population-based surveys, the US Census, and cancer registry data were used to estimate the number of eligible adults and lung cancer mortality (ie, burden). Lung cancer screening rates (SRs) in eligible adults and screening rate ratios with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were used to measure changes by state and year., Results: Nationally, the SR was steady between 2016 (3.3%, 95% CI = 3.3% to 3.7%) and 2017 (3.4%, 95% CI = 3.4% to 3.9%), increasing to 5.0% (95% CI = 5.0% to 5.7%) in 2018 (2018 vs 2016 SR ratio = 1.52, 95% CI = 1.51 to 1.62). In 2018, several southern states with a high lung-cancer burden (eg, Mississippi, West Virginia, and Arkansas) had relatively low SRs (<4%) among eligible adults, whereas several northeastern states with lower lung cancer burden (eg, Massachusetts, Vermont, and New Hampshire) had the highest SRs (12.8%-15.2%). The exception was Kentucky, which had the nation's highest lung cancer mortality rate and one of the highest SRs (13.7%)., Conclusions: Fewer than 1 in 20 eligible adults received LCS nationally, and uptake varied widely across states. LCS rates were not aligned with lung cancer burden across states, except for Kentucky, which has supported comprehensive efforts to implement LCS., (© The Author(s) 2020. Published by Oxford University Press.)

Lung cancer screening with a low radiation dose chest CT scan is the standard of care for screening-eligible individuals. The net benefit of screening may be optimized by delivering high-quality care, capable of maximizing the benefit and minimizing the harms of screening. Valid, feasible, and relevant indicators of the quality of lung cancer screening may help programs to evaluate their current practice and to develop quality improvement plans. The purpose of this project was to develop quality indicators related to the processes and outcomes of screening. Potential quality indicators were explored through surveys of multidisciplinary lung cancer screening experts. Those that achieved predefined measures of consensus for each of the validity, feasibility, and relevance domains are proposed as quality indicators. Each of the proposed indicators is described in detail, with guidance on how to define, measure, and improve program performance within the indicator., (Copyright © 2021 American College of Chest Physicians. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

In 2014, the American College of Radiology (ACR) created Lung-RADS 1.0. The system was updated to Lung-RADS 1.1 in 2019, and further updates are anticipated as additional data become available. Lung-RADS provides a common lexicon and standardized nodule follow-up management paradigm for use when reporting lung cancer screening (LCS) low-dose CT (LDCT) chest examinations and serves as a quality assurance and outcome monitoring tool. The use of Lung-RADS is intended to improve LCS performance and lead to better patient outcomes. To date, the ACR's Lung Cancer Screening Registry is the only LCS registry approved by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services and requires the use of Lung-RADS categories for reimbursement. Numerous challenges have emerged regarding the use of Lung-RADS in clinical practice, including the timing of return to LCS after planned follow-up diagnostic evaluation; potential substitution of interval diagnostic CT for future LDCT; role of volumetric analysis in assessing nodule size; assessment of nodule growth; assessment of cavitary, subpleural, and category 4X nodules; and variability in reporting of the S modifier. This article highlights the major updates between versions 1.0 and 1.1 of Lung-RADS, describes the system's ongoing challenges, and summarizes current evidence and recommendations.

Background: Lung cancer risk prediction models do not routinely incorporate imaging metrics available on low-dose CT (LDCT) imaging of the chest ordered for lung cancer screening., Research Question: What is the association between quantitative emphysema measured on LDCT imaging and lung cancer incidence and mortality, all-cause mortality, and airflow obstruction in individuals who currently or formerly smoked and are undergoing lung cancer screening?, Study Design and Methods: In 7,262 participants in the CT arm of the National Lung Screening Trial, percent low attenuation area (%LAA) was defined as the percentage of lung volume with voxels less than -950 Hounsfield units on the baseline examination. Multivariable Cox proportional hazards models, adjusting for competing risks where appropriate, were built to test for association between %LAA and lung cancer incidence, lung cancer mortality, and all-cause mortality with censoring at 6 years. In addition, multivariable logistic regression models were built to test the cross-sectional association between %LAA and airflow obstruction on spirometry, which was available in 2,700 participants., Results: The median %LAA was 0.8% (interquartile range, 0.2%-2.7%). Every 1% increase in %LAA was independently associated with higher hazards of lung cancer incidence (hazard ratio [HR], 1.02; 95% CI, 1.01-1.03; P = .004), lung cancer mortality (HR, 1.02; 95% CI, 1.00-1.05; P = .045), and all-cause mortality (HR, 1.01; 95% CI, 1.00-1.03; P = .042). Among participants with spirometry, 892 had airflow obstruction. The likelihood of airflow obstruction increased with every 1% increase in %LAA (odds ratio, 1.07; 95% CI, 1.06-1.09; P < .001). A %LAA cutoff of 1% had the best discriminative accuracy for airflow obstruction in participants aged > 65 years., Interpretation: Quantitative emphysema measured on LDCT imaging of the chest can be leveraged to improve lung cancer risk prediction and help diagnose COPD in individuals who currently or formerly smoked and are undergoing lung cancer screening., (Copyright © 2020 American College of Chest Physicians. All rights reserved.)

Background: Screening current and former heavy smokers 55 to 80 years of age for lung cancer (LC) with low-dose chest CT scanning has been recommended by the United States Preventive Services Task Force since 2013. Although the number of screening facilities in the United States has increased, screening uptake has been slow., Research Question: To what extent is geographic access to screening facilities a barrier for screening uptake nationally?, Study Design and Methods: Screening facilities were defined as American College of Radiology (ACR) Lung Cancer Screening Registry (LCSR) facilities. Analysis was performed at different geographic levels using a road network to calculate travel distances for the recommended age groups. Full access to screening was defined as the entire 55- to 79-year-old population being within 40 miles of an ACR LCSR facility. No access was defined as lack of access by the entire target population. Partial access was expressed in intervening quartiles. A geospatial approach then was used to integrate accessibility with smoking prevalence and LC mortality rates to identify potential focus areas visually., Results: Screening facilities addresses were geocoded to identify 3,592 unique locations. Analysis of census tracts and aggregation to counties revealed that among 3,142 counties, adults 55 to 79 years of age have full access to an LC screening registry facility in 1,988 (63%) counties, partial access in 587 (19%) counties, and no access in 567 (18%) counties. Overall, less than 6% of those 55 to 79 years of age do not have access to registry screening facilities. Variation in screening facility access was noted across the United States, between states, and within some states., Interpretation: It is recommended to calculate accessibility using subcounty geographies and to examine variation regionally and within states. A foundation geographic accessibility layer can be integrated with other variables to identify geographic disparities in access to screening and to focus on areas for interventions. Identifying areas of greatest need can inform state and local officials and healthcare organizations when planning and implementing LC screening programs., (Copyright © 2020. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Purpose: Develop a quantitative image analysis method to characterize the heterogeneous patterns of nodule components for the classification of pathological categories of nodules., Materials and Methods: With IRB approval and permission of the National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) project, 103 subjects with low dose CT (LDCT) were used in this study. We developed a radiomic quantitative CT attenuation distribution descriptor (qADD) to characterize the heterogeneous patterns of nodule components and a hybrid model (qADD+) that combined qADD with subject demographic data and radiologist-provided nodule descriptors to differentiate aggressive tumors from indolent tumors or benign nodules with pathological categorization as reference standard. The classification performances of qADD and qADD + were evaluated and compared to the Brock and the Mayo Clinic models by analysis of the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC)., Results: The radiomic features were consistently selected into qADDs to differentiate pathological invasive nodules from (1) preinvasive nodules, (2) benign nodules, and (3) the group of preinvasive and benign nodules, achieving test AUCs of 0.847 ± 0.002, 0.842 ± 0.002 and 0.810 ± 0.001, respectively. The qADD + obtained test AUCs of 0.867 ± 0.002, 0.888 ± 0.001 and 0.852 ± 0.001, respectively, which were higher than both the Brock and the Mayo Clinic models., Conclusion: The pathologic invasiveness of lung tumors could be categorized according to the CT attenuation distribution patterns of the nodule components manifested on LDCT images, and the majority of invasive lung cancers could be identified at baseline LDCT scans., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors and authors’ institutions have no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: The risks from potential exposure to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), and resource reallocation that has occurred to combat the pandemic, have altered the balance of benefits and harms that informed current (pre-COVID-19) guideline recommendations for lung cancer screening and lung nodule evaluation. Consensus statements were developed to guide clinicians managing lung cancer screening programs and patients with lung nodules during the COVID-19 pandemic., Methods: An expert panel of 24 members, including pulmonologists (n = 17), thoracic radiologists (n = 5), and thoracic surgeons (n = 2), was formed. The panel was provided with an overview of current evidence, summarized by recent guidelines related to lung cancer screening and lung nodule evaluation. The panel was convened by video teleconference to discuss and then vote on statements related to 12 common clinical scenarios. A predefined threshold of 70% of panel members voting agree or strongly agree was used to determine if there was a consensus for each statement. Items that may influence decisions were listed as notes to be considered for each scenario., Results: Twelve statements related to baseline and annual lung cancer screening (n = 2), surveillance of a previously detected lung nodule (n = 5), evaluation of intermediate and high-risk lung nodules (n = 4), and management of clinical stage I non-small-cell lung cancer (n = 1) were developed and modified. All 12 statements were confirmed as consensus statements according to the voting results. The consensus statements provide guidance about situations in which it was believed to be appropriate to delay screening, defer surveillance imaging of lung nodules, and minimize nonurgent interventions during the evaluation of lung nodules and stage I non-small-cell lung cancer., Conclusions: There was consensus that during the COVID-19 pandemic, it is appropriate to defer enrollment in lung cancer screening and modify the evaluation of lung nodules due to the added risks from potential exposure and the need for resource reallocation. There are multiple local, regional, and patient-related factors that should be considered when applying these statements to individual patient care., (Copyright © 2020 American College of Chest Physicians, published by Elsevier Inc; RSNA; and The American College of Radiology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Lung cancer remains the leading cause of cancer death in both men and women. Smoking is the single greatest risk factor for the development of lung cancer. For patients between the age of 55 and 80 with 30 or more pack years smoking history who currently smoke or who have quit within the last 15 years should undergo lung cancer screening with low-dose CT. In patients who do not meet these criteria but who have additional risk factors for lung cancer, lung cancer screening with low-dose CT is controversial but may be appropriate. Imaging is not recommended for lung cancer screening of patient younger than 50 years of age or patients older than 80 years of age or patients of any age with less than 20 packs per year history of smoking and no additional risk factor (ie, radon exposure, occupational exposure, cancer history, family history of lung cancer, history of COPD, or history of pulmonary fibrosis). The American College of Radiology Appropriateness Criteria are evidence-based guidelines for specific clinical conditions that are reviewed annually by a multidisciplinary expert panel. The guideline development and revision include an extensive analysis of current medical literature from peer reviewed journals and the application of well-established methodologies (RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation or GRADE) to rate the appropriateness of imaging and treatment procedures for specific clinical scenarios. In those instances where evidence is lacking or equivocal, expert opinion may supplement the available evidence to recommend imaging or treatment., (Copyright © 2018 American College of Radiology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer-related mortality in the United States and worldwide. Early detection of lung cancer is an important opportunity for decreasing mortality. Data support using low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) of the chest to screen select patients who are at high risk for lung cancer. Lung screening is covered under the Affordable Care Act for individuals with high-risk factors. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) covers annual screening LDCT for appropriate Medicare beneficiaries at high risk for lung cancer if they also receive counseling and participate in shared decision-making before screening. The complete version of the NCCN Guidelines for Lung Cancer Screening provides recommendations for initial and subsequent LDCT screening and provides more detail about LDCT screening. This manuscript focuses on identifying patients at high risk for lung cancer who are candidates for LDCT of the chest and on evaluating initial screening findings., (Copyright © 2018 by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network.)

In response to the recommendation of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force and the coverage decision by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services for lung cancer screening (LCS) computed tomography (CT), the American College of Radiology introduced the Lung CT Screening Reporting and Data System (Lung-RADS) in 2014 to standardize the reporting and management of screening-detected lung nodules. As with many first-edition guidelines, questions arise when such reporting systems are used in daily practice. In this article, a collection of 15 LCS-related scenarios are presented that address situations in which the Lung-RADS guidelines are unclear or situations that are not currently addressed in the Lung-RADS guidelines. For these 15 scenarios, the authors of this article provide the reader with recommendations that are based on their collective experiences, with the hope that future versions of Lung-RADS will provide additional guidance, particularly as more data from widespread LCS are collected and analyzed. © RSNA, 2017.

Objectives: This study retrospectively analyses the screening CT examinations and outcomes of the National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) participants who had interval lung cancer diagnosed within 1 year after a negative CT screen and before the next annual screen., Methods: The screening CTs of all 44 participants diagnosed with interval lung cancer (cases) were matched with negative CT screens of participants who did not develop lung cancer (controls). A majority consensus process was used to classify each CT screen as positive or negative according to the NLST criteria and to estimate the likelihood that any abnormalities detected retrospectively were due to lung cancer., Results: By retrospective review, 40/44 cases (91%) and 17/44 controls (39%) met the NLST criteria for a positive screen (P < 0.001). Cases had higher estimated likelihood of lung cancer (P < 0.001). Abnormalities included pulmonary nodules ≥4 mm (n = 16), mediastinal (n = 8) and hilar (n = 6) masses, and bronchial lesions (n = 6). Cancers were stage III or IV at diagnosis in 32/44 cases (73%); 37/44 patients (84%) died of lung cancer, compared to 225/649 (35%) for all screen-detected cancers (P < 0.0001)., Conclusion: Most cases met the NLST criteria for a positive screen. Awareness of missed abnormalities and interpretation errors may aid lung cancer identification in CT screening., Key Points: • Lung cancer within a year of a negative CT screen was rare. • Abnormalities likely due to lung cancer were identified retrospectively in most patients. • Awareness of error types may help identify lung cancer sooner.

The Quantitative Imaging Biomarker Alliance (QIBA) is a multidisciplinary consortium sponsored by the RSNA to define processes that enable the implementation and advancement of quantitative imaging methods described in a QIBA profile document that outlines the process to reliably and accurately measure imaging features. A QIBA profile includes factors such as technical (product-specific) standards, user activities, and relationship to a clinically meaningful metric, such as with nodule measurement in the course of CT screening for lung cancer. In this report, the authors describe how the QIBA approach is being applied to the measurement of small pulmonary nodules such as those found during low-dose CT-based lung cancer screening. All sources of variance with imaging measurement were defined for this process. Through a process of experimentation, literature review, and assembly of expert opinion, the strongest evidence was used to define how to best implement each step in the imaging acquisition and evaluation process. This systematic approach to implementing a quantitative imaging biomarker with standardized specifications for image acquisition and postprocessing for a specific quantitative measurement of a pulmonary nodule results in consistent performance characteristics of the measurement (eg, bias and variance). Implementation of the QIBA small nodule profile may allow more efficient and effective clinical management of the diagnostic workup of individuals found to have suspicious pulmonary nodules in the course of lung cancer screening evaluation., (Copyright © 2015 American College of Radiology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

The ACR recognizes that low-dose CT for lung cancer screening has the potential to significantly reduce mortality from lung cancer in the appropriate high-risk population. The ACR supports the recommendations of the US Preventive Services Task Force and the National Comprehensive Cancer Network for screening patients. To be effective, lung cancer screening should be performed at sites providing high-quality low-dose CT examinations overseen and interpreted by qualified physicians using a structured reporting and management system. The ACR has developed a set of tools necessary for radiologists to take the lead on the front lines of lung cancer screening. The ACR Lung Cancer Screening Center designation is built upon the ACR CT accreditation program and requires use of Lung-RADS or a similar structured reporting and management system. This designation provides patients and referring providers with the assurance that they will receive high-quality screening with appropriate follow-up care., (Copyright © 2015 American College of Radiology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Lung cancer screening with low dose computed tomography (CT) is the only method ever proven to reduce lung cancer-specific mortality in high-risk current and former cigarette smokers. Radiation exposure from annual screening CT examinations and subsequent CT and nuclear medicine testing to further evaluate positive screening CTs is sometimes raised as a reason to avoid screening and is often misunderstood. With all testing, there are potential benefits and risks. As we sit on the brink of widespread adoption of lung cancer screening CT, we aim to explain why the risks associated with radiation exposure from lung cancer screening are very low and should not be used to avoid screening or dissuade individuals who qualify for screening CT to participate in a lung cancer screening program., (Thieme Medical Publishers 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.)

Introduction: The imaging evaluation of pulmonary nodules, often incidentally detected on imaging examinations performed for other clinical reasons, is a frequently encountered clinical circumstance. With advances in imaging modalities, both the detection and characterization of pulmonary nodules continue to evolve and improve., Areas Covered: This article will review the imaging modalities used to detect and diagnose benign and malignant pulmonary nodules, with a focus on computed tomography (CT), which continues to be the mainstay for evaluation. The authors discuss recent advances in the lung nodule management, and an algorithm for the management of indeterminate pulmonary nodules., Expert Opinion: There are set of criteria that define a benign nodule, the most important of which are the lack of temporal change for 2 years or more, and certain benign imaging criteria, including specific patterns of calcification or the presence of fat. Although some indeterminate pulmonary nodules are immediately actionable, generally those approaching 1 cm or larger in diameter, at which size the diagnostic accuracy of tools such as positron emission tomography (PET)/CT, single photon emission CT (SPECT) and biopsy techniques are sufficient to warrant their use. The majority of indeterminate pulmonary nodules are under 1 cm, for which serial CT examinations through at least 2 years for solid nodules and 3 years for ground-glass nodules, are used to demonstrate either benign biologic behavior or otherwise. The management of incidental pulmonary nodules involves a multidisciplinary approach in which radiology plays a pivotal role. Newer imaging and postprocessing techniques have made this a more accurate technique eliminating ambiguity and unnecessary follow-up.

The National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) reported a 20% reduction in lung cancer specific mortality using low-dose chest CT (LDCT) compared with chest radiograph (CXR) screening. The high number of false positive screens with LDCT (around 25%) raises concerns. NLST radiologists reported LDCT screens as either positive or not positive, based primarily on the presence of a 4+ mm non-calcified lung nodule (NCN). They did not explicitly record a propensity score for lung cancer. However, by using maximum NCN size, or alternatively, radiologists' recommendations for diagnostic follow-up categorized hierarchically, surrogate propensity scores (PSSZ and PSFR) were created. These scores were then used to compute ROC curves, which determine possible operating points of sensitivity versus false positive rate (1-Specificity). The area under the ROC curve (AUC) was 0.934 and 0.928 for PSFR and PSSZ, respectively; the former was significantly greater than the latter. With the NLST definition of a positive screen, sensitivity and specificity of LDCT was 93.1% and 76.5%, respectively. With cutoffs based on PSFR, a specificity of 92.4% could be achieved while only lowering sensitivity to 86.9%. Radiologists using LDCT have good predictive ability; the optimal operating point for sensitivity and specificity remains to be determined.

Screening with low-dose computed tomography reduces mortality from lung cancer in high-risk patients. Lung cancer screening with chest radiography alone or in combination with sputum analysis is currently not recommended. The feasibility and impact of screening in patients with a low or moderate risk for primary lung cancer are currently not known. A standardized framework for testing and management in a multidisciplinary fashion is necessary to provide lung cancer screening. The National Comprehensive Cancer Network and the American Lung Association have recently issued guidelines for lung cancer screening with computed tomography in high-risk patients., (Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

This article summarizes what is known about the best practices of lung cancer screening and provides suggestions for the proper structure for institutions considering offering lung cancer screening services. Important points of emphasis include the need to confine screening to patients at highest risk, the presence of multidisciplinary teams capable of managing the high number of false-positive findings, the need for additional research on biomarkers and risk models for lung cancer, and the currently unknown cost-effectiveness of lung cancer screening on a societal level.

Purpose: The development of computer-aided diagnostic (CAD) methods for lung nodule detection, classification, and quantitative assessment can be facilitated through a well-characterized repository of computed tomography (CT) scans. The Lung Image Database Consortium (LIDC) and Image Database Resource Initiative (IDRI) completed such a database, establishing a publicly available reference for the medical imaging research community. Initiated by the National Cancer Institute (NCI), further advanced by the Foundation for the National Institutes of Health (FNIH), and accompanied by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) through active participation, this public-private partnership demonstrates the success of a consortium founded on a consensus-based process., Methods: Seven academic centers and eight medical imaging companies collaborated to identify, address, and resolve challenging organizational, technical, and clinical issues to provide a solid foundation for a robust database. The LIDC/IDRI Database contains 1018 cases, each of which includes images from a clinical thoracic CT scan and an associated XML file that records the results of a two-phase image annotation process performed by four experienced thoracic radiologists. In the initial blinded-read phase, each radiologist independently reviewed each CT scan and marked lesions belonging to one of three categories ("nodule > or =3 mm," "nodule <3 mm," and "non-nodule > or =3 mm"). In the subsequent unblinded-read phase, each radiologist independently reviewed their own marks along with the anonymized marks of the three other radiologists to render a final opinion. The goal of this process was to identify as completely as possible all lung nodules in each CT scan without requiring forced consensus., Results: The Database contains 7371 lesions marked "nodule" by at least one radiologist. 2669 of these lesions were marked "nodule > or =3 mm" by at least one radiologist, of which 928 (34.7%) received such marks from all four radiologists. These 2669 lesions include nodule outlines and subjective nodule characteristic ratings., Conclusions: The LIDC/IDRI Database is expected to provide an essential medical imaging research resource to spur CAD development, validation, and dissemination in clinical practice.

Rationale and Objectives: The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of computer-aided diagnosis (CAD) on radiologists' estimates of the likelihood of malignancy of lung nodules on computed tomographic (CT) imaging., Methods and Materials: A total of 256 lung nodules (124 malignant, 132 benign) were retrospectively collected from the thoracic CT scans of 152 patients. An automated CAD system was developed to characterize and provide malignancy ratings for lung nodules on CT volumetric images. An observer study was conducted using receiver-operating characteristic analysis to evaluate the effect of CAD on radiologists' characterization of lung nodules. Six fellowship-trained thoracic radiologists served as readers. The readers rated the likelihood of malignancy on a scale of 0% to 100% and recommended appropriate action first without CAD and then with CAD. The observer ratings were analyzed using the Dorfman-Berbaum-Metz multireader, multicase method., Results: The CAD system achieved a test area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve (A(z)) of 0.857 +/- 0.023 using the perimeter, two nodule radii measures, two texture features, and two gradient field features. All six radiologists obtained improved performance with CAD. The average A(z) of the radiologists improved significantly (P < .01) from 0.833 (range, 0.817-0.847) to 0.853 (range, 0.834-0.887)., Conclusion: CAD has the potential to increase radiologists' accuracy in assessing the likelihood of malignancy of lung nodules on CT imaging.

Rationale and Objectives: To retrospectively investigate the effect of a computer-aided detection (CAD) system on radiologists' performance for detecting small pulmonary nodules in computed tomography (CT) examinations, with a panel of expert radiologists serving as the reference standard., Materials and Methods: Institutional review board approval was obtained. Our dataset contained 52 CT examinations collected by the Lung Image Database Consortium, and 33 from our institution. All CTs were read by multiple expert thoracic radiologists to identify the reference standard for detection. Six other thoracic radiologists read the CT examinations first without and then with CAD. Performance was evaluated using free-response receiver operating characteristics (FROC) and the jackknife FROC analysis methods (JAFROC) for nodules above different diameter thresholds., Results: A total of 241 nodules, ranging in size from 3.0 to 18.6 mm (mean, 5.3 mm) were identified as the reference standard. At diameter thresholds of 3, 4, 5, and 6 mm, the CAD system had a sensitivity of 54%, 64%, 68%, and 76%, respectively, with an average of 5.6 false positives (FPs) per scan. Without CAD, the average figures of merit (FOMs) for the six radiologists, obtained from JAFROC analysis, were 0.661, 0.729, 0.793, and 0.838 for the same nodule diameter thresholds, respectively. With CAD, the corresponding average FOMs improved to 0.705, 0.763, 0.810, and 0.862, respectively. The improvement achieved statistical significance for nodules at the 3 and 4 mm thresholds (P = .002 and .020, respectively), and did not achieve significance at 5 and 6 mm (P = .18 and .13, respectively). At a nodule diameter threshold of 3 mm, the radiologists' average sensitivity and FP rate were 0.56 and 0.67, respectively, without CAD, and 0.67 and 0.78 with CAD., Conclusion: CAD improves thoracic radiologists' performance for detecting pulmonary nodules smaller than 5 mm on CT examinations, which are often overlooked by visual inspection alone.

Rationale and Objectives: Studies that evaluate the lung nodule detection performance of radiologists or computerized methods depend on an initial inventory of the nodules within the thoracic images (the "truth"). The purpose of this study was to analyze (1) variability in the "truth" defined by different combinations of experienced thoracic radiologists and (2) variability in the performance of other experienced thoracic radiologists based on these definitions of "truth" in the context of lung nodule detection in computed tomographic (CT) scans., Materials and Methods: Twenty-five thoracic CT scans were reviewed by four thoracic radiologists, who independently marked lesions they considered to be nodules >or=3 mm in maximum diameter. Panel "truth" sets of nodules were then derived from the nodules marked by different combinations of two and three of these four radiologists. The nodule detection performance of the other radiologists was evaluated based on these panel "truth" sets., Results: The number of "true" nodules in the different panel "truth" sets ranged from 15 to 89 (mean 49.8 +/- 25.6). The mean radiologist nodule detection sensitivities across radiologists and panel "truth" sets for different panel "truth" conditions ranged from 51.0 to 83.2%; mean false-positive rates ranged from 0.33 to 1.39 per case., Conclusions: Substantial variability exists across radiologists in the task of lung nodule identification in CT scans. The definition of "truth" on which lung nodule detection studies are based must be carefully considered, because even experienced thoracic radiologists may not perform well when measured against the "truth" established by other experienced thoracic radiologists.

Rationale and Objectives: Computer-aided diagnostic (CAD) systems fundamentally require the opinions of expert human observers to establish "truth" for algorithm development, training, and testing. The integrity of this "truth," however, must be established before investigators commit to this "gold standard" as the basis for their research. The purpose of this study was to develop a quality assurance (QA) model as an integral component of the "truth" collection process concerning the location and spatial extent of lung nodules observed on computed tomography (CT) scans to be included in the Lung Image Database Consortium (LIDC) public database., Materials and Methods: One hundred CT scans were interpreted by four radiologists through a two-phase process. For the first of these reads (the "blinded read phase"), radiologists independently identified and annotated lesions, assigning each to one of three categories: "nodule >or=3 mm," "nodule <3 mm," or "non-nodule >or=3 mm." For the second read (the "unblinded read phase"), the same radiologists independently evaluated the same CT scans, but with all of the annotations from the previously performed blinded reads presented; each radiologist could add to, edit, or delete their own marks; change the lesion category of their own marks; or leave their marks unchanged. The post-unblinded read set of marks was grouped into discrete nodules and subjected to the QA process, which consisted of identification of potential errors introduced during the complete image annotation process and correction of those errors. Seven categories of potential error were defined; any nodule with a mark that satisfied the criterion for one of these categories was referred to the radiologist who assigned that mark for either correction or confirmation that the mark was intentional., Results: A total of 105 QA issues were identified across 45 (45.0%) of the 100 CT scans. Radiologist review resulted in modifications to 101 (96.2%) of these potential errors. Twenty-one lesions erroneously marked as lung nodules after the unblinded reads had this designation removed through the QA process., Conclusions: The establishment of "truth" must incorporate a QA process to guarantee the integrity of the datasets that will provide the basis for the development, training, and testing of CAD systems.

Rationale and Objectives: The Lung Image Database Consortium (LIDC) is developing a publicly available database of thoracic computed tomography (CT) scans as a medical imaging research resource to promote the development of computer-aided detection or characterization of pulmonary nodules. To obtain the best estimate of the location and spatial extent of lung nodules, expert thoracic radiologists reviewed and annotated each scan. Because a consensus panel approach was neither feasible nor desirable, a unique two-phase, multicenter data collection process was developed to allow multiple radiologists at different centers to asynchronously review and annotate each CT scan. This data collection process was also intended to capture the variability among readers., Materials and Methods: Four radiologists reviewed each scan using the following process. In the first or "blinded" phase, each radiologist reviewed the CT scan independently. In the second or "unblinded" review phase, results from all four blinded reviews were compiled and presented to each radiologist for a second review, allowing the radiologists to review their own annotations together with the annotations of the other radiologists. The results of each radiologist's unblinded review were compiled to form the final unblinded review. An XML-based message system was developed to communicate the results of each reading., Results: This two-phase data collection process was designed, tested, and implemented across the LIDC. More than 500 CT scans have been read and annotated using this method by four expert readers; these scans either are currently publicly available at http://ncia.nci.nih.gov or will be in the near future., Conclusions: A unique data collection process was developed, tested, and implemented that allowed multiple readers at distributed sites to asynchronously review CT scans multiple times. This process captured the opinions of each reader regarding the location and spatial extent of lung nodules.

Rationale and Objectives: The goal was to investigate the effects of choosing between different metrics in estimating the size of pulmonary nodules as a factor both of nodule characterization and of performance of computer aided detection systems, because the latter are always qualified with respect to a given size range of nodules., Materials and Methods: This study used 265 whole-lung CT scans documented by the Lung Image Database Consortium (LIDC) using their protocol for nodule evaluation. Each inspected lesion was reviewed independently by four experienced radiologists who provided boundary markings for nodules larger than 3 mm. Four size metrics, based on the boundary markings, were considered: a unidimensional and two bidimensional measures on a single image slice and a volumetric measurement based on all the image slices. The radiologist boundaries were processed and those with four markings were analyzed to characterize the interradiologist variation, while those with at least one marking were used to examine the difference between the metrics., Results: The processing of the annotations found 127 nodules marked by all of the four radiologists and an extended set of 518 nodules each having at least one observation with three-dimensional sizes ranging from 2.03 to 29.4 mm (average 7.05 mm, median 5.71 mm). A very high interobserver variation was observed for all these metrics: 95% of estimated standard deviations were in the following ranges for the three-dimensional, unidimensional, and two bidimensional size metrics, respectively (in mm): 0.49-1.25, 0.67-2.55, 0.78-2.11, and 0.96-2.69. Also, a very large difference among the metrics was observed: 0.95 probability-coverage region widths for the volume estimation conditional on unidimensional, and the two bidimensional size measurements of 10 mm were 7.32, 7.72, and 6.29 mm, respectively., Conclusions: The selection of data subsets for performance evaluation is highly impacted by the size metric choice. The LIDC plans to include a single size measure for each nodule in its database. This metric is not intended as a gold standard for nodule size; rather, it is intended to facilitate the selection of unique repeatable size limited nodule subsets.

A 49-year-old premenopausal woman presented with acute onset of lower abdominal pain. Physical examination revealed her abdomen was distended and nontender. Her white blood cell count and serum markers for ovarian cancer were normal (alpha-fetoprotein level, 1.6 microg/L; Ca-125 level, 15 U/mL; beta-human chorionic gonadotrophin level < 2 IU/mL). She had no important medical history; in particular, she had no history of malignancy. She denied having any chest symptoms; in particular, she denied experiencing chest pain, cough, or dyspnea. She had stopped smoking at the age of 40 years after having smoked for a total of 20 pack-years. A computed tomographic (CT) examination of the abdomen and pelvis was performed. Helical CT was performed with 150 mL of intravenous contrast material (iohexol, Omnipaque; Amersham Healthcare, Cork, Ireland) and 750 mL of oral contrast material (diatrizoate sodium, Hypaque; Amersham Health, Princeton, NJ). CT sections were 5 mm thick and were acquired from the top of the diaphragm through the ischial tuberosities with a rotation time of 13.5 seconds per rotation and use of a LightSpeed 16 CT scanner (GE Medical Systems, Milwaukee, Wis).

We are developing a computer-aided diagnosis (CAD) system to classify malignant and benign lung nodules found on CT scans. A fully automated system was designed to segment the nodule from its surrounding structured background in a local volume of interest (VOI) and to extract image features for classification. Image segmentation was performed with a three-dimensional (3D) active contour (AC) method. A data set of 96 lung nodules (44 malignant, 52 benign) from 58 patients was used in this study. The 3D AC model is based on two-dimensional AC with the addition of three new energy components to take advantage of 3D information: (1) 3D gradient, which guides the active contour to seek the object surface, (2) 3D curvature, which imposes a smoothness constraint in the z direction, and (3) mask energy, which penalizes contours that grow beyond the pleura or thoracic wall. The search for the best energy weights in the 3D AC model was guided by a simplex optimization method. Morphological and gray-level features were extracted from the segmented nodule. The rubber band straightening transform (RBST) was applied to the shell of voxels surrounding the nodule. Texture features based on run-length statistics were extracted from the RBST image. A linear discriminant analysis classifier with stepwise feature selection was designed using a second simplex optimization to select the most effective features. Leave-one-case-out resampling was used to train and test the CAD system. The system achieved a test area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (A(z)) of 0.83 +/- 0.04. Our preliminary results indicate that use of the 3D AC model and the 3D texture features surrounding the nodule is a promising approach to the segmentation and classification of lung nodules with CAD. The segmentation performance of the 3D AC model trained with our data set was evaluated with 23 nodules available in the Lung Image Database Consortium (LIDC). The lung nodule volumes segmented by the 3D AC model for best classification were generally larger than those outlined by the LIDC radiologists using visual judgment of nodule boundaries.

Lung cancer screening with CT remains controversial. Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer death. To date, no screening test has been demonstrated to reduce mortality. Given the large population of adult cigarette smokers and former smokers worldwide, there is a large population at risk for lung cancer. While a lot has been learned from prospective single-arm cohort studies about the feasibility of performing annual CT to screen for lung cancer, many questions have also been raised. While we know that screening for lung cancer with CT detects many small nodules, with up to half the subjects having a positive baseline screen, and up to 75% of subjects having a positive screen at least once if screened annually for 5 years, the great majority of these nodules exhibit benign biologic behavior. The innumerable small nodules detected with screening CT, and diagnostic chest CT in general, present a daily clinical challenge, and result in extensive medical resource utilization and additional radiation exposure. Algorithms for how and when to follow small nodules detected on CT are in evolution. Ongoing studies are designed to determine if lung cancer screening with CT reduces lung cancer mortality.

Rationale and Objectives: A critical element in determining biologic behavior of pulmonary nodules is volume and temporal volume change. We evaluate variability in nodule volume among readers and measuring methods., Materials and Methods: 55 small (<2 cm) lung nodules were measured in long- and short-axis dimensions independently by 4 radiologists, using 3 methods: 1) hard copy, 2) GE Advantage Windows workstation (GE Healthcare, Milwaukee, WI), 3) Siemens IMACS workstation (Siemens Medical Systems, Iselan, NJ). Nodule margin was recorded as smooth, lobulated, or spiculated. Volume was calculated from diameter measurements. Variability in nodule volume was evaluated within each reader, between readers, and across measurement tools., Results: Mean nodule short-axis diameter was 5.3 mm; mean long-axis diameter 7.2 mm. There was statistically significant variation among readers and measurement method for nodule volume. Volume was significantly larger using hard-copy measurements (51.9%-54.1% variation; P < .0001) than either workstation, and not different between workstations. There was greater intraobserver variability in volume using the hard-copy method, and no difference between workstation methods. Volumes based on measurements from one reader were consistently lower than those from other readers (P = < .001, .003, and .02); volume was consistently larger for another reader (P < .0001, .03, and .12). Reader agreement for nodule margin was good to excellent., Conclusion: Considerable interobserver and intraobserver variability in measuring nodules exists using hard-copy and computer tools. Since a small change in diameter indicates a much larger change in volume, this may be significant when using early repeat CT to follow small pulmonary nodules. Computer-aided diagnostic tools that reproducibly measure nodule volume are strongly needed.

Systemic mastocytosis is an uncommon disease of unknown prevalence. Most patients clinically present with urticaria pigmentosa. The diagnosis is made by finding increased mast cells in the involved tissues. Pulmonary involvement in systemic mastocytosis is rare. The chest radiographic findings include reticulonodular opacities and lung nodules. We present a case of histologically proven pulmonary and skeletal systemic mastocytosis (AKA systemic mast cell disease) associated with a hematologic condition, including the high-resolution computed tomographic findings of this disorder.

More than 150,00 patients a year present to their physicians with the diagnostic dilemma of a solitary pulmonary nodule (SPN) found either on chest radiography or chest CT. A thoughtful and timely workup of this finding is essential if lung cancer is to be recognized early and the chance for cure optimized. Based on the literature to date, recommendations are made for appropriate imaging modalities and diagnostic testing, as well as indications for obtaining preoperative tissue diagnosis for the patient with an SPN.

Purpose: To determine the frequency, clinical characteristics, and radiologic findings of bronchogenic carcinoma in patients surviving more than 1 month after lung transplantation., Materials and Methods: The study population was composed of 2,168 consecutive patients at seven lung transplantation centers who survived longer than 1 month after lung transplantation. Medical records, chest radiographs, and computed tomographic (CT) scans obtained at the time of diagnosis and prior images when available were reviewed for various items of information and imaging features., Results: Twenty-four (1%) of the 2,168 patients, all with single-lung transplants, developed cancer in the native lung. Eighteen patients had emphysema, and six had pulmonary fibrosis. The frequencies of cancer in patients with emphysema and fibrosis were 2% (18 of 859 patients) and 4% (six of 147 patients), respectively. Twelve (50%) of their 24 cancers were detected at chest radiography. Fourteen (58%) patients had clinical symptoms. Twenty-one (88%) of the 24 patients had one (n = 11) or more (n = 10) nodules, and nine (38%) had one (n = 8) or more (n = 1) masses visible on CT scans. Nodules and masses were visible on 12 (50%) and seven (29%) of 24 chest radiographs, respectively. Eleven (48%) of 23 cancers for which prior chest radiographs were available were seen retrospectively on prior chest radiographs., Conclusion: Bronchogenic carcinoma develops in the native lung of transplant recipients with emphysema and pulmonary fibrosis with frequencies of 2% and 4%, respectively. The carcinomas most commonly manifest as a pulmonary nodule or mass on chest radiographs, with more nodules seen on CT scans.