Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Multicenter Study
. 2019 Oct;29(10):5217-5226.
doi: 10.1007/s00330-018-5857-5. Epub 2018 Dec 3.

CT screening for lung cancer: comparison of three baseline screening protocols

Claudia I Henschke  1   2   3 , Rowena Yip  4 , Teng Ma  4   5 , Samuel M Aguayo  6 , Javier Zulueta  7 , David F Yankelevitz  4 ; Writing Committee for the I-ELCAP Investigators
Collaborators, Affiliations
Multicenter Study

CT screening for lung cancer: comparison of three baseline screening protocols

Claudia I Henschke et al. Eur Radiol. 2019 Oct.

Erratum in

Abstract

Purpose: Clinical management decisions arising from the baseline round for lung cancer screening are the most challenging, as findings have accumulated over a lifetime and may be of no clinical concern. To minimize unnecessary harms and costs of workup prior to the first, annual repeat screening, workup should be limited to participants with the highest suspicion of lung cancer while still aiming to identify small, early lung cancers.

Methods: We compared recommendations for immediate, delayed (by 3 or 6 months) workup to assess growth at a malignant rate, and the resulting overall and potential biopsies of three baseline screening protocols: I-ELCAP, the two scenarios of ACR-LungRADS, and the European Consortium. For each protocol, the efficiency ratio (ER) of each recommendation was calculated by dividing the number of participants recommended for that workup by the number of resulting lung cancer diagnoses. The ER for potential biopsies was calculated, assuming that biopsies were performed on all participants recommended for immediate workup as well as those diagnosed with lung cancer after delayed workup.

Results: For I-ELCAP, ACR-LungRADS Scenario 1, ACR-LungRADS Scenario 2, and the European consortium, the overall ER was 13.9, 18.3, 18.3, and 31.9, respectively, and for potential biopsies, it was 2.2, 8.1, 3.2, and 4.4, respectively. ER for immediate workup was 2.9, 8.6, 3.9, and 5.6, respectively, and for delayed workup was 36.1, 160.3, 57.8, and 111.9, respectively.

Conclusions: I-ELCAP recommendations had the lowest ER values for overall, immediate, and delayed workup, and for potential biopsies.

Key points: • Small differences in protocol thresholds can lead to many unnecessary diagnostic workups. • I-ELCAP recommendations were the most efficient for immediate and overall workup, and potential biopsies. • Definition of a "positive result" and recommendations for further workup in the baseline round needs to be continually reevaluated and updated.

Keywords: Cancer screening; Clinical protocols; Lung neoplasms; Spiral computed; Tomography.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

    1. J Gen Intern Med. 2018 Jul;33(7):1035-1042 - PubMed
    1. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2002 May;178(5):1053-7 - PubMed
    1. Chest. 2013 May;143(5 Suppl):e93S-e120S - PubMed
    1. Ann Intern Med. 2015 Apr 7;162(7):485-91 - PubMed
    1. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2016 Feb 24;108(6):djv436 - PubMed

Publication types