Dataset Information

Cancer Risk in Subsolid Nodules in the National Lung Screening Trial.

ABSTRACT: Background Subsolid pulmonary nodules, comprising pure ground-glass nodules (GGNs) and part-solid nodules (PSNs), have a high risk of indolent malignancy. Lung Imaging Reporting and Data System (Lung-RADS) nodule management guidelines are based on expert opinion and lack independent validation. Purpose To evaluate Lung-RADS estimates of the malignancy rates of subsolid nodules, using nodules from the National Lung Screening Trial (NLST), and to compare Lung-RADS to the NELSON trial classification as well as the Brock University calculator. Materials and Methods Subsets of GGNs and PSNs were selected from the NLST for this retrospective study. A thoracic radiologist reviewed the baseline and follow-up CT images, confirmed that they were true subsolid nodules, and measured the nodules. The primary outcome for each nodule was the development of malignancy within the follow-up period (median, 6.5 years). Nodules were stratified according to Lung-RADS, NELSON trial criteria, and the Brock model. For analyses, nodule subsets were weighted on the basis of frequency in the NLST data set. Nodule stratification models were tested by using receiver operating characteristic curves. Results A total of 622 nodules were evaluated, of which 434 nodules were subsolid. At baseline, 304 nodules were classified as Lung-RADS category 2, with a malignancy rate of 3%, which is greater than the 1% in Lung-RADS (P = .004). The malignancy rate for GGNs smaller than 10 mm (two of 129, 1.3%) was smaller than that for GGNs measuring 10-19 mm (11 of 153, 6%) (P = .01). The malignancy rate for Lung-RADS category 3 was 14% (13 of 67), which is greater than the reported 2% in Lung-RADS (P < .001). The Brock model predicted malignancy better than Lung-RADS and the NELSON trial scheme (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve = 0.78, 0.70, and 0.67, respectively; P = .02 for Brock model vs NELSON trial scheme). Conclusion Subsolid nodules classified as Lung Imaging Reporting and Data System (Lung-RADS) categories 2 and 3 have a higher risk of malignancy than reported. The Brock risk calculator performed better than measurement-based classification schemes such as Lung-RADS. © RSNA, 2019 Online supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Kauczor and von Stackelberg in this issue.

SUBMITTER: Hammer MM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6823608 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Cancer Risk in Subsolid Nodules in the National Lung Screening Trial.

Hammer Mark M MM Palazzo Lauren L LL Kong Chung Yin CY Hunsaker Andetta R AR

Radiology 20190917 2

Background Subsolid pulmonary nodules, comprising pure ground-glass nodules (GGNs) and part-solid nodules (PSNs), have a high risk of indolent malignancy. Lung Imaging Reporting and Data System (Lung-RADS) nodule management guidelines are based on expert opinion and lack independent validation. Purpose To evaluate Lung-RADS estimates of the malignancy rates of subsolid nodules, using nodules from the National Lung Screening Trial (NLST), and to compare Lung-RADS to the NELSON trial classificatio ...[more]

PMID: 31526256

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe coexistence of emphysema and lung nodules could interact with each other and then lead to potential higher lung cancer risk. The study aimed to explore the association between emphysema combined with lung nodules and lung cancer risk.MethodsA total of 21,949 participants from the National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) who underwent low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) examination were included. Participants were categorized into four groups (NENN group (non-emphysema and non-nodules), E group (emphysema without nodules), N group (nodules without emphysema), and E + N group (nodules with emphysema)) according to whether there were lung nodules and emphysema. Multivariable Cox regression and stratified analyses were performed to estimate the association between the four groups and lung cancer risk.ResultsAmong the 21,949 participants, there were 9,040 (41.2%), 5,819 (26.5%), 4,737 (21.6%), and 2,353 (10.7%) participants in the NENN group, E group, N group, and E + N group. The risk of lung cancer incidence increased in turn in NENN group, E group, N group and E + N group. Compared with NENN group, the age-adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) (95% confidence intervals (CIs)) of lung cancer incidence were 2.07 (1.69 - 2.54) for E group, 4.13 (3.47 - 5.05) for N group, and 6.26 (5.14 - 7.62) for E + N group. The association was robust to adjustment for potential confounders (1.83 (1.47 - 2.27) for E group, 3.97 (3.24 - 4.86) for N group, and 5.23 (4.28 - 6.48) for E + N group). Comparable results as the lung cancer incidence were observed for lung cancer mortality, whether in age-adjusted model (E group: 1.85 (1.39 - 2.46), N group: 2.49 (1.89 - 3.29), E + N group: 4.27 (3.21 - 5.68)) or fully adjusted model (E group: 1.56 (1.15 - 2.11), N group: 2.43 (1.81 - 3.26), E + N group: 3.39 (2.50 - 4.61)). However, the trend of all-cause mortality risk among the four groups was somewhat different from that of lung cancer risk, whether in age-adjusted model (1.37 (1.21 - 1.54) for E group, 1.06 (0.92 - 1.21) for N group, and 1.75 (1.51 - 2.02) for E + N group) or fully adjusted model (1.26 (1.10 - 1.44) for E group, 1.09 (0.94 - 1.27) for N group, and 1.52 (1.30 - 1.79) for E + N group).ConclusionBased on a large-scale lung cancer screening trial in the United States, this study demonstrated that either emphysema or lung nodules can increase lung cancer risk, and lung nodules combined with emphysema can further increase the lung cancer risk and all-cause mortality. The significance of these findings for lung cancer screening should be evaluated.

Dataset Information

Cancer Risk in Subsolid Nodules in the National Lung Screening Trial.

Publications

Cancer Risk in Subsolid Nodules in the National Lung Screening Trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets