Optimum diameter threshold for lung nodules at baseline lung cancer screening with low-dose chest CT: exploration of results from the Korean Lung Cancer Screening Project

Coronary Artery Calcification on Low-Dose Lung Cancer Screening CT in South Korea: Visual and Artificial Intelligence-Based Assessment and Association With Cardiovascular Events

Background: Coronary artery calcification (CAC) on lung cancer screening low-dose chest CT (LDCT) is a cardiovascular risk marker. South Korea was the first Asian country to initiate a national LDCT lung cancer screening program, although CAC-related outcomes are poorly explored. Objective: To evaluate CAC prevalence and severity using visual analysis and artificial intelligence (AI) methods and to characterize CAC's association with major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs) in patients undergoing LDCT in Korea's national lung cancer screening program. Methods: This retrospective study included 1002 patients (mean age, 62.4±5.4 years; 994 men, 8 women) who underwent LDCT at two Korean medical centers between April 2017 and May 2023 as part of Korea's national lung cancer screening program. Two radiologists independently assessed CAC presence and severity using visual analysis, consulting a third radiologist to resolve differences. Two AI software applications were also used to assess CAC presence and severity. MACE occurrences were identified by EMR review. Results: Interreader agreement for CAC presence and severity, expressed as kappa, were 0.793 and 0.671, respectively. CAC prevalence was 53.4% by consensus visual assessment, 56.6% by AI software I, and 60.1% by AI software II. CAC severity was mild, moderate, and severe by consensus visual analysis in 28.0%, 10.3% and 15.1%; by AI software I in 39.9%, 14.0%, and 6.2%; and by AI software II in 34.9%, 14.3%, and 7.3%. MACE occurred in 36 of 625 (5.6%) patients with follow-up after LDCT (median, 1108 days). MACE incidence in patients with no, mild, moderate, and severe CAC, for consensus visual analysis was 1.1%, 5.0%, 2.9%, and 8.6% (p<.001); for AI software I was 1.3%, 3.0%, 7.9%, and 11.3% (p<.001); and for AI software II was 1.2%, 5.0%, 7.7%, and 9.6% (p<.001) Conclusion: For Korea's national lung cancer screening program, MACE occurrence increased significantly with increasing CAC severity, whether assessed by visual analysis or AI software. The study is limited by the large sex imbalance for Korea's national lung cancer screening program. Clinical Impact: The findings provide reference data for healthcare practitioners engaged in developing and overseeing national lung cancer screening programs, highlighting the importance of routine CAC evaluation.

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

Health systems worldwide are implementing lung cancer screening programmes to identify early-stage lung cancer and maximise patient survival. Volumetry is recommended for follow-up of pulmonary nodules and outperforms other measurement methods. However, volumetry is known to be influenced by multiple factors. The objectives of this systematic review (PROSPERO CRD42022370233) are to summarise the current knowledge regarding factors that influence volumetry tools used in the analysis of pulmonary nodules, assess for significant clinical impact, identify gaps in current knowledge and suggest future research. Five databases (Medline, Scopus, Journals@Ovid, Embase and Emcare) were searched on the 21st of September, 2022, and 137 original research studies were included, explicitly testing the potential impact of influencing factors on the outcome of volumetry tools. The summary of these studies is tabulated, and a narrative review is provided. A subset of studies (n = 16) reporting clinical significance were selected, and their results were combined, if appropriate, using meta-analysis. Factors with clinical significance include the segmentation algorithm, quality of the segmentation, slice thickness, the level of inspiration for solid nodules, and the reconstruction algorithm and kernel in subsolid nodules. Although there is a large body of evidence in this field, it is unclear how to apply the results from these studies in clinical practice as most studies do not test for clinical relevance. The meta-analysis did not improve our understanding due to the small number and heterogeneity of studies testing for clinical significance. CRITICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: Many studies have investigated the influencing factors of pulmonary nodule volumetry, but only 11% of these questioned their clinical relevance in their management. The heterogeneity among these studies presents a challenge in consolidating results and clinical application of the evidence. KEY POINTS: • Factors influencing the volumetry of pulmonary nodules have been extensively investigated. • Just 11% of studies test clinical significance (wrongly diagnosing growth). • Nodule size interacts with most other influencing factors (especially for smaller nodules). • Heterogeneity among studies makes comparison and consolidation of results challenging. • Future research should focus on clinical applicability, screening, and updated technology.

Determination of the optimum definition of growth evaluation for indeterminate pulmonary nodules detected in lung cancer screening

Objective

To determine the optimum definition of growth for indeterminate pulmonary nodules detected in lung cancer screening.

Materials and methods

Individuals with indeterminate nodules as defined by volume of 50–500 mm3 (solid nodules) and solid component volume of 50–500 mm3 or average diameter of non-solid component ≥8 mm (part-solid nodules) on baseline lung cancer screening low-dose chest CT (LDCT) were included. The average diameters and volumes of the nodules were measured on baseline and follow-up LDCTs with semi-automated segmentation. Sensitivities and specificities for lung cancer diagnosis of nodule growth defined by a) percentage volume growth ≥25% (defined in the NELSON study); b) absolute diameter growth >1.5 mm (defined in the Lung-RADS version 1.1); and c) subjective decision by a radiologist were evaluated. Sensitivities and specificities of diagnostic referral based on various thresholds of volume doubling time (VDT) were also evaluated.

Results

Altogether, 115 nodules (one nodule per individual; 93 solid and 22 part-solid nodules; 105 men; median age, 68 years) were evaluated (median follow-up interval: 201 days; interquartile range: 127–371 days). Percentage volume growth ≥25% exhibited higher sensitivity but lower specificity than those of diametrical measurement compared to absolute diameter growth >1.5 mm (sensitivity, 69.2% vs. 42.3%, p = 0.023; specificity, 82.0% vs. 96.6%, p = 0.002). The radiologist had an equivalent sensitivity (53.9%; p = 0.289) but higher specificity (98.9%; p = 0.002) compared to those of volume growth, but did not differ from those of diameter growth (p>0.05 both in sensitivity and specificity). Compared to the VDT threshold of 600 days (sensitivity, 61.5%; specificity, 87.6%), VDT thresholds ≤200 and ≤300 days exhibited significantly lower sensitivity (30.8%, p = 0.013) and higher specificity (94.4%, p = 0.041), respectively.

Conclusion

Growth evaluation of screening-detected indeterminate nodules with volumetric measurement exhibited higher sensitivity but lower specificity compared to diametric measurements.

Malignancy risk stratification for solitary pulmonary nodule: A clinical practice guideline

CLINICAL QUESTION

The detection rate of the solitary pulmonary nodule (SPN) is increasing with the popularization of CT scanning. Malignancy risk stratification for SPN is a major clinical difficulty.

CURRENT PRACTICE

There have been several guidelines for SPN assessment. Inconsistency of these guidelines makes the clinical application difficult and confusing.

RECOMMENDATIONS

In this Rapid Recommendation, solid and subsolid SPNs are recommended to be evaluated respectively. Six factors, namely the combination of age with sex, smoking history, history of malignancy, family history of malignancy, and nodule size, are recommended for malignancy risk stratification for both kinds of SPNs; the border of nodules (spiculation and lobulation) is recommended for evaluating solid SPNs and the density of nodules (pure or mixed ground-glass nodule) is recommended for subsolid nodules. Among them, smoking history and radiologic features (nodule diameter, border, and density) are of relatively higher importance. A scoring system was proposed to assist malignancy risk stratification of SPNs, with a total score ranging from six points to 15 points (if solid) or 17 points (if subsolid). For each SPN, regardless of solid or subsolid in nature, a total score of ≤ 7 points suggested a low risk of being malignant, while 7 to 9 points suggested medium risk, and ≥ 9 points suggested high risk.

HOW THIS GUIDELINE WAS CREATED

This rapid recommendation was developed using the MAGIC (Making GRADE the Irresistible Choice) methodological framework. First, a clinical subcommittee identified the topic of recommendation and requested evidence. Then, an independent evidence synthesis subcommittee performed a comprehensive literature review and evaluated the evidence. Finally, based on findings from the systematic review and use of real-world data, the clinical subcommittee formulated recommendations, including the scoring system, through a consensus procedure.

THE EVIDENCE

A total of 13857 patients with SPNs were included in the meta-analysis and the association between 12 candidate factors and the risk of SPNs being malignant was studied. Eventually, seven factors were recommended for SPNs evaluation, and a scoring system was proposed.

UNDERSTANDING THE RECOMMENDATION

The parameters included are objective. Therefore, this recommendation is feasible in clinical practice. However, there are several uncertainties, such as a lack of further verification. It might be misclassified by the scoring system. Clinicians could choose the most suitable scheme according to the recommendation, along with their own experience in specific situations.