Insights for Management of Ground-Glass Opacities From the National Lung Screening Trial
Overview
Pulmonary Medicine
Affiliations
Background: In the National Lung Screening Trial (NLST), screen-detected cancers that would not have been identified by the Lung Computed Tomographic Screening Reporting and Data System (Lung-RADS) nodule management guidelines were frequently ground-glass opacities (GGOs). Lung-RADS suggests that GGOs with diameter less than 20 mm return for annual screening, and GGOs greater than or equal to 20 mm receive 6-month follow-up. We examined whether this 20-mm threshold gives consistent management of GGOs compared with solid nodules.
Methods: First, we calculated diameter-specific malignancy probabilities for GGOs and solid nodules in the NLST. Using the solid-nodule malignancy risks as benchmarks, we suggested risk-based management categories for GGOs based on their probability of malignancy. Second, we compared lung-cancer mortality between GGOs and solid nodules in the same risk-based category.
Results: Using the Lung-RADS v1.0 classifications, malignancy probability is higher for GGOs than solid nodules within the same category. A risk-based classification of GGOs would assign annual screening for GGOs 4 to 5 mm (0.4% malignancy risk); 6-month follow-up for GGOs 6 to 7 mm (1.1%), 8 to 14 mm (3.0%), and 15 to 19 mm (5.2%); and 3-month follow-up for greater than or equal to 20 mm (10.9%). This reclassification would have assigned similarly fatal cancers to 3-month follow-up (hazard ratio = 2.0 for lung-cancer death in GGOs versus solid-nodule cancers, 95% confidence interval: 0.4-8.7), but for 6-month follow-up, mortality was lower in GGO cancers (hazard ratio = 0.18, 95% confidence interval: 0.05-0.67).
Conclusions: If Lung-RADS categories for GGOs were based on malignancy probability, then 6- to 19-mm GGOs would receive 6-month follow-up and greater than or equal to 20-mm GGOs would receive 3-month follow-up. Such risk-based management for GGOs could improve the sensitivity of Lung-RADS, especially for large GGO cancers. However, small GGO cancers were less aggressive than their solid-nodule counterparts.
Cao P, Wei Z, Xue G, Wang N, Li Z, Hu Y Quant Imaging Med Surg. 2024; 14(10):7218-7228.
PMID: 39429568 PMC: 11485351. DOI: 10.21037/qims-24-906.
Wang Y, Zhang M, Sang L, Li Z, Wang X, Yang Z Quant Imaging Med Surg. 2024; 14(3):2280-2295.
PMID: 38545042 PMC: 10963830. DOI: 10.21037/qims-23-1283.
Wu G, Zhu Y, Qiu X, Yuan X, Mi X, Zhou R BMC Pulm Med. 2023; 23(1):329.
PMID: 37674193 PMC: 10481600. DOI: 10.1186/s12890-023-02613-2.
Zhao Z, Yu Y, Lin Z, Ma D, Lin Y, Hu J J Cancer Res Clin Oncol. 2023; 149(10):7759-7765.
PMID: 37016100 DOI: 10.1007/s00432-023-04713-2.
Ufuk F Diagn Interv Radiol. 2023; 29(3):361.
PMID: 36994882 PMC: 10679612. DOI: 10.4274/dir.2022.221590.