Projected outcomes using different nodule sizes to define a positive CT lung cancer screening examination.

BACKGROUND Computed tomography (CT) screening for lung cancer has been associated with a high frequency of false positive results because of the high prevalence of indeterminate but usually benign small pulmonary nodules. The acceptability of reducing false-positive rates and diagnostic evaluations by increasing the nodule size threshold for a positive screen depends on the projected balance between benefits and risks. METHODS We examined data from the National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) to estimate screening CT performance and outcomes for scans with nodules above the 4mm NLST threshold used to classify a CT screen as positive. Outcomes assessed included screening results, subsequent diagnostic tests performed, lung cancer histology and stage distribution, and lung cancer mortality. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value were calculated for the different nodule size thresholds. All statistical tests were two-sided. RESULTS In 64% of positive screens (11598/18141), the largest nodule was 7 mm or less in greatest transverse diameter. By increasing the threshold, the percentages of lung cancer diagnoses that would have been missed or delayed and false positives that would have been avoided progressively increased, for example from 1.0% and 15.8% at a 5 mm threshold to 10.5% and 65.8% at an 8 mm threshold, respectively. The projected reductions in postscreening follow-up CT scans and invasive procedures also increased as the threshold was raised. Differences across nodules sizes for lung cancer histology and stage distribution were small but statistically significant. There were no differences across nodule sizes in survival or mortality. CONCLUSION Raising the nodule size threshold for a positive screen would substantially reduce false-positive CT screenings and medical resource utilization with a variable impact on screening outcomes.

[1]  W. Heindel,et al.  Screening for early lung cancer with low-dose spiral computed tomography: results of annual follow-up examinations in asymptomatic smokers , 2004, European Radiology.

[2]  D. Aberle,et al.  Results of initial low-dose computed tomographic screening for lung cancer. , 2013, The New England journal of medicine.

[3]  B. Kramer,et al.  Overdiagnosis in low-dose computed tomography screening for lung cancer. , 2014, JAMA internal medicine.

[4]  S. Swensen,et al.  Lung cancer screening with CT: Mayo Clinic experience. , 2003, Radiology.

[5]  O. Miettinen,et al.  CT screening for lung cancer: suspiciousness of nodules according to size on baseline scans. , 2004, Radiology.

[6]  G. McVey,et al.  Screening for lung cancer using low dose CT scanning: results of 2 year follow up , 2005, Thorax.

[7]  Richard A. Szucs,et al.  TNM Classification of Malignant Tumors. 5th ed , 1998 .

[8]  Denise R. Aberle,et al.  Baseline Characteristics of Participants in the Randomized National Lung Screening Trial , 2010, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[9]  J. Rathmell,et al.  Results of the two incidence screenings in the National Lung Screening Trial. , 2013, The New England journal of medicine.

[10]  B. Kramer,et al.  The National Lung Screening Trial: Results stratified by demographics, smoking history, and lung cancer histology , 2013, Cancer.

[11]  D. Lynch,et al.  The National Lung Screening Trial: overview and study design. , 2011, Radiology.

[12]  M. Roizen Reduced Lung-Cancer Mortality with Low-Dose Computed Tomographic Screening , 2012 .

[13]  D. Aberle,et al.  The National Lung Screening Trial's Endpoint Verification Process: determining the cause of death. , 2011, Contemporary clinical trials.

[14]  M. L. R. D. Christenson,et al.  Guidelines for Management of Small Pulmonary Nodules Detected on CT Scans: A Statement From the Fleischner Society , 2006 .

[15]  David O Wilson,et al.  The Pittsburgh Lung Screening Study (PLuSS): outcomes within 3 years of a first computed tomography scan. , 2008, American journal of respiratory and critical care medicine.

[16]  Paul F. Pinsky,et al.  Evaluation of reader variability in the interpretation of follow-up CT scans at lung cancer screening. , 2011, Radiology.

[17]  Kavita Garg,et al.  Lung cancer: interobserver agreement on interpretation of pulmonary findings at low-dose CT screening. , 2008, Radiology.

[18]  David F Yankelevitz,et al.  Definition of a Positive Test Result in Computed Tomography Screening for Lung Cancer , 2013, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[19]  S. Lam,et al.  Probability of cancer in pulmonary nodules detected on first screening CT. , 2013, The New England journal of medicine.