Search

BackgroundThe US guidelines recommend low-dose CT (LDCT) lung cancer screening for high-risk individuals. New solid nodules after baseline screening are common and have a high lung cancer probability. Currently, no evidence exists concerning the risk stratification of non-resolving new solid nodules at first LDCT screening after initial detection.MethodsIn the Dutch-Belgian Randomized Lung Cancer Screening (NELSON) trial, 7295 participants underwent the second and 6922 participants the third screening round. We included participants with solid nodules that were registered as new or 3).ResultsOverall, 680 participants with 1020 low-risk and intermediate-risk new solid nodules were included. A total of 562 (55%) new solid nodules were resolving, leaving 356 (52%) participants with a non-resolving new solid nodule, of whom 25 (7%) were diagnosed with lung cancer. At first screening after initial detection, volume doubling time (VDT), volume, and VDT combined with a predefined ≥200 mm3 volume cut-off had high discrimination for lung cancer (VDT, area under the curve (AUC): 0.913; volume, AUC: 0.875; VDT and ≥200 mm3 combination, AUC: 0.939). Classifying a new solid nodule with either ≤590 days VDT or ≥200 mm3 volume positive provided 100% sensitivity, 84% specificity and 27% positive predictive value for lung cancer.ConclusionsMore than half of new low-risk and intermediate-risk solid nodules in LDCT lung cancer screening resolve. At follow-up, growth assessment potentially combined with a volume limit can be used for risk stratification.Trial registration numberISRCTN63545820; pre-results.

PurposeNew nodules after baseline are regularly found in low-dose CT lung cancer screening and have a high lung cancer probability. It is unknown whether morphological and location characteristics can improve new nodule risk stratification by size.MethodsSolid non-calcified nodules detected during incidence screening rounds of the randomised controlled Dutch-Belgian lung cancer screening (NELSON) trial and registered as new or previously below detection limit (15 mm3) were included. A multivariate logistic regression analysis with lung cancer as outcome was performed, including previously established volume cut-offs (3, 30–3 and ≥200 mm3) and nodule characteristics (location, distribution, shape, margin and visibility 3 in retrospect).ResultsOverall, 1280 new nodules were included with 73 (6%) being lung cancer. Of nodules ≥30 mm3 at detection and visible 3 in retrospect, 22% (6/27) were lung cancer. Discrimination based on volume cut-offs (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC): 0.80, 95% CI 0.75 to 0.84) and continuous volume (AUC: 0.82, 95% CI 0.77 to 0.87) was similar. After adjustment for volume cut-offs, only location in the right upper lobe (OR 2.0, P=0.012), central distribution (OR 2.4, P=0.001) and visibility 3 in retrospect (OR 4.7, P=0.003) remained significant predictors for lung cancer. The Hosmer-Lemeshow test (P=0.75) and assessment of bootstrap calibration curves indicated adequate model fit. Discrimination based on the continuous model probability (AUC: 0.85, 95% CI 0.81 to 0.89) was superior to volume cut-offs alone, but when stratified into three risk groups (AUC: 0.82, 95% CI 0.78 to 0.86), discrimination was similar.ConclusionContrary to morphological nodule characteristics, growth-independent characteristics may further improve volume-based new nodule lung cancer prediction, but in a three-category stratification approach, this is limited.Trial registration numberISRCTN63545820; pre-results.

Background Debate about the optimal lung cancer screening strategy is ongoing. In this study, previous screening history of the Dutch-Belgian Lung Cancer Screening trial (NELSON) is investigated on if it predicts the screening outcome (test result and lung cancer risk) of the final screening round. Methods 15â €..792 participants were randomised (1:1) of which 7900 randomised into a screening group. CT screening took place at baseline, and after 1, 2 and 2.5â €..years. Initially, three screening outcomes were possible: negative, indeterminate or positive scan result. Probability for screening outcome in the fourth round was calculated for subgroups of participants. Results Based on results of the first three rounds, three subgroups were identified: (1) those with exclusively negative results (n=3856; 73.0%); (2) those with ≥1 indeterminate result, but never a positive result (n=1342; 25.5%); and (3) with ≥1 positive result (n=81; 1.5%). Group 1 had the highest probability for having a negative scan result in round 4 (97.2% vs 94.8% and 90.1%, respectively, p

We studied 2240 indeterminate solid nodules (volume 50–500mm3) to determine the correlation of diameter and semi-automated volume measurements for pulmonary nodule size estimation. Intra-nodular diameter variation, defined as maximum minus minimum diameter through the nodule’s center, varied by 2.8 mm (median, IQR:2.2–3.7 mm), so above the 1.5 mm cutoff for nodule growth used in Lung CT Screening Reporting and Data System (Lung-RADS). Using mean or maximum axial diameter to assess nodule volume led to a substantial mean overestimation of nodule volume of 47.2% and 85.1%, respectively, compared to semi-automated volume. Thus, size of indeterminate nodules is poorly represented by diameter.Trial registration numberPre-results, ISRCTN63545820.