Lung Cancer Screening by Nodule Volume in Lung-RADS V1.1: Negative Baseline CT Yields Potential for Increased Screening Interval

Overview

Journal Eur Radiol

Specialty Radiology

Date 2020 Sep 30

PMID 32997182

Citations 18

Authors

Mario Silva

Gianluca Milanese

Stefano Sestini

Federica Sabia

Colin Jacobs

Bram van Ginneken

Mathias Prokop

Cornelia M Schaefer-Prokop

Alfonso Marchiano

Nicola Sverzellati

Ugo Pastorino

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Objectives: The 2019 Lung CT Screening Reporting & Data System version 1.1 (Lung-RADS v1.1) introduced volumetric categories for nodule management. The aims of this study were to report the distribution of Lung-RADS v1.1 volumetric categories and to analyse lung cancer (LC) outcomes within 3 years for exploring personalized algorithm for lung cancer screening (LCS).

Methods: Subjects from the Multicentric Italian Lung Detection (MILD) trial were retrospectively selected by National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) criteria. Baseline characteristics included selected pre-test metrics and nodule characterization according to the volume-based categories of Lung-RADS v1.1. Nodule volume was obtained by segmentation with dedicated semi-automatic software. Primary outcome was diagnosis of LC, tested by univariate and multivariable models. Secondary outcome was stage of LC. Increased interval algorithms were simulated for testing rate of delayed diagnosis (RDD) and reduction of low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) burden.

Results: In 1248 NLST-eligible subjects, LC frequency was 1.2% at 1 year, 1.8% at 2 years and 2.6% at 3 years. Nodule volume in Lung-RADS v1.1 was a strong predictor of LC: positive LDCT showed an odds ratio (OR) of 75.60 at 1 year (p < 0.0001), and indeterminate LDCT showed an OR of 9.16 at 2 years (p = 0.0068) and an OR of 6.35 at 3 years (p = 0.0042). In the first 2 years after negative LDCT, 100% of resected LC was stage I. The simulations of low-frequency screening showed a RDD of 13.6-21.9% and a potential reduction of LDCT burden of 25.5-41%.

Conclusions: Nodule volume by semi-automatic software allowed stratification of LC risk across Lung-RADS v1.1 categories. Personalized screening algorithm by increased interval seems feasible in 80% of NLST eligible.

Key Points: • Using semi-automatic segmentation of nodule volume, Lung-RADS v1.1 selected 10.8% of subjects with positive CT and 96.87 relative risk of lung cancer at 1 year, compared to negative CT. • Negative low-dose CT by Lung-RADS v1.1 was found in 80.6% of NLST eligible and yielded 40 times lower relative risk of lung cancer at 2 years, compared to positive low-dose CT; annual screening could be preference sensitive in this group. • Semi-automatic segmentation of nodule volume and increased screening interval by volumetric Lung-RADS v1.1 could retrospectively suggest a 25.5-41% reduction of LDCT burden, at the cost of 13.6-21.9% rate of delayed diagnosis.

Citing Articles

Surveillance of subsolid nodules avoids unnecessary resections in lung cancer screening: long-term results of the prospective BioMILD trial.

Balbi M, Sabia F, Ledda R, Rolli L, Milanese G, Ruggirello M ERJ Open Res. 2024; 10(4).

PMID: 39193379 PMC: 11347998. DOI: 10.1183/23120541.00167-2024.

Recurrent medical imaging exposures for the care of patients: one way forward.

Frush D, Vassileva J, Brambilla M, Mahesh M, Rehani M, Samei E Eur Radiol. 2024; 34(10):6475-6487.

PMID: 38592419 DOI: 10.1007/s00330-024-10659-x.

Factors influencing the outcome of volumetry tools for pulmonary nodule analysis: a systematic review and attempted meta-analysis.

Guedes Pinto E, Penha D, Ravara S, Monaghan C, Hochhegger B, Marchiori E Insights Imaging. 2023; 14(1):152.

PMID: 37741928 PMC: 10517915. DOI: 10.1186/s13244-023-01480-z.

Performance of Lung-RADS in different target populations: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Mao Y, Cai J, Heuvelmans M, Vliegenthart R, Groen H, Oudkerk M Eur Radiol. 2023; 34(3):1877-1892.

PMID: 37646809 PMC: 10873443. DOI: 10.1007/s00330-023-10049-9.

Development of a Novel Circulating Autoantibody Biomarker Panel for the Identification of Patients with 'Actionable' Pulmonary Nodules.

Auger C, Moudgalya H, Neely M, Stephan J, Tarhoni I, Gerard D Cancers (Basel). 2023; 15(8).

PMID: 37190187 PMC: 10136536. DOI: 10.3390/cancers15082259.

References

Pastorino U, Silva M, Sestini S, Sabia F, Boeri M, Cantarutti A . Prolonged lung cancer screening reduced 10-year mortality in the MILD trial: new confirmation of lung cancer screening efficacy. Ann Oncol. 2019; 30(7):1162-1169. PMC: 6637372. DOI: 10.1093/annonc/mdz117. View

Becker N, Motsch E, Trotter A, Heussel C, Dienemann H, Schnabel P . Lung cancer mortality reduction by LDCT screening-Results from the randomized German LUSI trial. Int J Cancer. 2019; 146(6):1503-1513. DOI: 10.1002/ijc.32486. View

de Koning H, Meza R, Plevritis S, Ten Haaf K, Munshi V, Jeon J . Benefits and harms of computed tomography lung cancer screening strategies: a comparative modeling study for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Ann Intern Med. 2014; 160(5):311-20. PMC: 4116741. DOI: 10.7326/M13-2316. View

Kovalchik S, Tammemagi M, Berg C, Caporaso N, Riley T, Korch M . Targeting of low-dose CT screening according to the risk of lung-cancer death. N Engl J Med. 2013; 369(3):245-254. PMC: 3783654. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1301851. View

Goffin J, Flanagan W, Miller A, Fitzgerald N, Memon S, Wolfson M . Biennial lung cancer screening in Canada with smoking cessation-outcomes and cost-effectiveness. Lung Cancer. 2016; 101:98-103. DOI: 10.1016/j.lungcan.2016.09.013. View

Patz Jr E, Greco E, Gatsonis C, Pinsky P, Kramer B, Aberle D . Lung cancer incidence and mortality in National Lung Screening Trial participants who underwent low-dose CT prevalence screening: a retrospective cohort analysis of a randomised, multicentre, diagnostic screening trial. Lancet Oncol. 2016; 17(5):590-9. PMC: 5094059. DOI: 10.1016/S1470-2045(15)00621-X. View

Heuvelmans M, Walter J, Vliegenthart R, van Ooijen P, de Bock G, de Koning H . Disagreement of diameter and volume measurements for pulmonary nodule size estimation in CT lung cancer screening. Thorax. 2017; 73(8):779-781. DOI: 10.1136/thoraxjnl-2017-210770. View

Horeweg N, van Rosmalen J, Heuvelmans M, van der Aalst C, Vliegenthart R, Scholten E . Lung cancer probability in patients with CT-detected pulmonary nodules: a prespecified analysis of data from the NELSON trial of low-dose CT screening. Lancet Oncol. 2014; 15(12):1332-41. DOI: 10.1016/S1470-2045(14)70389-4. View

Tanoue L, Tanner N, Gould M, Silvestri G . Lung cancer screening. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2014; 191(1):19-33. DOI: 10.1164/rccm.201410-1777CI. View

10.

Devaraj A, van Ginneken B, Nair A, Baldwin D . Use of Volumetry for Lung Nodule Management: Theory and Practice. Radiology. 2017; 284(3):630-644. DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2017151022. View

11.

Mazzone P, Silvestri G, Patel S, Kanne J, Kinsinger L, Wiener R . Screening for Lung Cancer: CHEST Guideline and Expert Panel Report. Chest. 2018; 153(4):954-985. DOI: 10.1016/j.chest.2018.01.016. View

12.

Callister M, Baldwin D, Akram A, Barnard S, Cane P, Draffan J . British Thoracic Society guidelines for the investigation and management of pulmonary nodules. Thorax. 2015; 70 Suppl 2:ii1-ii54. DOI: 10.1136/thoraxjnl-2015-207168. View

13.

Oudkerk M, Devaraj A, Vliegenthart R, Henzler T, Prosch H, Heussel C . European position statement on lung cancer screening. Lancet Oncol. 2017; 18(12):e754-e766. DOI: 10.1016/S1470-2045(17)30861-6. View

14.

Kauczor H, Baird A, Blum T, Bonomo L, Bostantzoglou C, Burghuber O . ESR/ERS statement paper on lung cancer screening. Eur Radiol. 2020; 30(6):3277-3294. DOI: 10.1007/s00330-020-06727-7. View

15.

Pastorino U, Rossi M, Rosato V, Marchiano A, Sverzellati N, Morosi C . Annual or biennial CT screening versus observation in heavy smokers: 5-year results of the MILD trial. Eur J Cancer Prev. 2012; 21(3):308-15. DOI: 10.1097/CEJ.0b013e328351e1b6. View

16.

Sverzellati N, Silva M, Calareso G, Galeone C, Marchiano A, Sestini S . Low-dose computed tomography for lung cancer screening: comparison of performance between annual and biennial screen. Eur Radiol. 2016; 26(11):3821-3829. DOI: 10.1007/s00330-016-4228-3. View

17.

Muller D, Johansson M, Brennan P . Lung Cancer Risk Prediction Model Incorporating Lung Function: Development and Validation in the UK Biobank Prospective Cohort Study. J Clin Oncol. 2017; 35(8):861-869. DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2016.69.2467. View

18.

Silva M, Pastorino U, Sverzellati N . Lung cancer screening with low-dose CT in Europe: strength and weakness of diverse independent screening trials. Clin Radiol. 2017; 72(5):389-400. DOI: 10.1016/j.crad.2016.12.021. View

19.

Caverly T, Cao P, Hayward R, Meza R . Identifying Patients for Whom Lung Cancer Screening Is Preference-Sensitive: A Microsimulation Study. Ann Intern Med. 2018; 169(1):1-9. PMC: 6033668. DOI: 10.7326/M17-2561. View

20.

Robbins H, Berg C, Cheung L, Chaturvedi A, Katki H . Identification of Candidates for Longer Lung Cancer Screening Intervals Following a Negative Low-Dose Computed Tomography Result. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2019; 111(9):996-999. PMC: 6748798. DOI: 10.1093/jnci/djz041. View