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
. 2021 Apr 1;181(4):480-489.
doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2020.8250.

Association of the Intensity of Diagnostic Evaluation With Outcomes in Incidentally Detected Lung Nodules

Farhood Farjah  1 , Sarah E Monsell  2 , Michael K Gould  3   4 , Rebecca Smith-Bindman  5 , Matthew P Banegas  6 , Patrick J Heagerty  2 , Erin M Keast  6 , Arvind Ramaprasan  7 , Kurt Schoen  8 , Elena G Brewer  1 , Robert T Greenlee  8 , Diana S M Buist  4   7
Affiliations

Association of the Intensity of Diagnostic Evaluation With Outcomes in Incidentally Detected Lung Nodules

Farhood Farjah et al. JAMA Intern Med. .

Abstract

Importance: Whether guideline-concordant lung nodule evaluations lead to better outcomes remains unknown.

Objective: To examine the association between the intensity of lung nodule diagnostic evaluations and outcomes, safety, and health expenditures.

Design, setting, and participants: This comparative effectiveness research study analyzed health plan enrollees at Kaiser Permanente Washington in Seattle, Washington, and Marshfield Clinic in Marshfield, Wisconsin, with an incidental lung nodule detected between January 1, 2005, and December 31, 2015. Included patients were 35 years or older, had no high suspicion of infection, had no history of malignant neoplasm, and had no evidence of advanced lung cancer on nodule detection. Data analysis was conducted from January 7 to August 19, 2020.

Exposures: With the 2005 Fleischner Society guidelines (selected for their applicability to the time frame under investigation) as the comparator, 2 other intensities of lung nodule evaluation were defined. Guideline-concordant evaluation followed the guidelines. Less intensive evaluation was the absence of recommended testing, longer-than-recommended surveillance intervals, or less invasive testing than recommended. More intensive evaluation consisted of testing when the guidelines recommended no further testing, shorter-than-recommended surveillance intervals, or more invasive testing than recommended.

Main outcomes and measures: The main outcome was the proportion of patients with lung cancer who had stage III or IV disease, radiation exposure, procedure-related adverse events, and health expenditures 2 years after nodule detection.

Results: Among the 5057 individuals included in this comparative effectiveness research study, 1925 (38%) received guideline-concordant, 1863 (37%) less intensive, and 1269 (25%) more intensive diagnostic evaluations. The entire cohort comprised 2786 female patients (55%), and the mean (SD) age was 67 (13) years. Adjusted analyses showed that compared with guideline-concordant evaluations, less intensive evaluations were associated with fewer procedure-related adverse events (risk difference [RD], -5.9%; 95% CI, -7.2% to -4.6%), lower mean radiation exposure (-9.5 milliSieverts [mSv]; 95% CI, -10.3 mSv to -8.7 mSv), and lower mean health expenditures (-$10 916; 95% CI, -$16 112 to -$5719); no difference in stage III or IV disease was found among patients diagnosed with lung cancer (RD, 4.6%; 95% CI, -22% to +31%). More intensive evaluations were associated with more procedure-related adverse events (RD, +8.1%; 95% CI, +5.6% to +11%), higher mean radiation exposure (+6.8 mSv; 95% CI, +5.8 mSv to +7.8 mSv), and higher mean health expenditures ($20 132; 95% CI, +$14 398 to +$25 868); no difference in stage III or IV disease was observed (RD, -0.5%; 95% CI, -28% to +27%).

Conclusions and relevance: This study found inconclusive evidence of an association between less intensive diagnostic evaluations and more advanced stage at lung cancer diagnosis compared with guideline-concordant care; higher intensities of diagnostic evaluations were associated with greater procedural complications, radiation exposure, and expenditures. These findings underscore the need for more evidence on better ways to evaluate lung nodules and to avoid unnecessarily intensive diagnostic evaluations of lung nodules.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflict of Interest Disclosures: Dr Farjah reported receiving grants from the National Cancer Institute (NCI) of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) during the conduct of the study. Ms Monsell reported receiving grants from the NCI of the NIH during the conduct of the study. Dr Gould reported receiving grants through his institution from the NCI of the NIH during the conduct of the study, grants through his institution from the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute for serving as the principal investigator for a trial of pulmonary nodule evaluation strategies, personal fees from UpToDate Royalties for being a co-author of publications on lung cancer diagnosis and staging, and grants through his institution from Medial EarlySign for helping develop computer models of lung cancer risk outside the submitted work. Dr Smith-Bindman reported receiving consultant fees from the University of Washington; receiving a consultant fee from the NIH during the conduct of the study; and being the founder of Alara Imaging, which reports on quality measures for radiology, including computed tomography. Dr Banegas reported receiving grants from AstraZeneca outside the submitted work. Ms Brewer reported receiving grants from the NCI of the NIH during the conduct of the study. Dr Greenlee reported receiving grants from the University of Washington during the conduct of the study. Dr Buist reported receiving grants from the NCI of the NIH during the conduct of the study. No other disclosures were reported.

Figures

Figure.
Figure.. Time to Lung Cancer Diagnosis by Intensity of Lung Nodule Evaluation for the Entire Cohort and Subgroups of Patients
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Comment in

References

    1. Gould MK, Tang T, Liu IL, et al. . Recent trends in the identification of incidental pulmonary nodules. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2015;192(10):1208-1214. doi:10.1164/rccm.201505-0990OC - DOI - PubMed
    1. Wiener RS, Gould MK, Woloshin S, Schwartz LM, Clark JA. What do you mean, a spot?: a qualitative analysis of patients’ reactions to discussions with their physicians about pulmonary nodules. Chest. 2013;143(3):672-677. doi:10.1378/chest.12-1095 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Slatore CG, Golden SE, Ganzini L, Wiener RS, Au DH. Distress and patient-centered communication among veterans with incidental (not screen-detected) pulmonary nodules: a cohort study. Ann Am Thorac Soc. 2015;12(2):184-192. doi:10.1513/AnnalsATS.201406-283OC - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Wiener RS, Gould MK, Slatore CG, Fincke BG, Schwartz LM, Woloshin S. Resource use and guideline concordance in evaluation of pulmonary nodules for cancer: too much and too little care. JAMA Intern Med. 2014;174(6):871-880. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2014.561 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. MacMahon H, Austin JH, Gamsu G, et al. ; Fleischner Society . Guidelines for management of small pulmonary nodules detected on CT scans: a statement from the Fleischner Society. Radiology. 2005;237(2):395-400. doi:10.1148/radiol.2372041887 - DOI - PubMed

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources