Suppr超能文献

一种比较 PanCan 模型和 Lung-RADS 在评估有筛查发现的实性肺结节人群中的癌症可能性的方法。

A Comparison of the PanCan Model and Lung-RADS to Assess Cancer Probability Among People With Screening-Detected, Solid Lung Nodules.

机构信息

Quantitative Sciences Unit, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA.

Division of Health Services Research and Implementation Science, Kaiser Permanente Southern California, La Cañada Flintridge, CA; Department of Health Systems Science, Kaiser Permanente Bernard J. Tyson School of Medicine, Pasadena, CA.

出版信息

Chest. 2021 Mar;159(3):1273-1282. doi: 10.1016/j.chest.2020.10.040. Epub 2020 Oct 23.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

The Pan-Canadian Early Detection of Lung Cancer (PanCan) risk model and the Lung CT Screening Reporting & Data System (Lung-RADS) estimate cancer probability for screening-detected nodules. The accuracy and agreement of these models require further study.

RESEARCH QUESTION

What is the performance of the PanCan model and Lung-RADS to estimate the probability of cancer in screening-detected solid nodules?

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

We analyzed data for newly identified, solid nodules detected on any screening round in the low-dose CT arm of the National Lung Screening Trial to assign a PanCan risk and Lung-RADS score. We compared PanCan risk with the corresponding Lung-RADS category according to the expected prevalence of cancer and examined accuracy using logistic regression and between-test agreement. We also analyzed baseline screen-detected nodules only, high (defined as ≥ 5% probability of cancer) vs low-risk nodules, "risk-gap" nodules with a 3% to 5% PanCan probability and no equivalent Lung-RADS category, and procedure use by model.

RESULTS

Participants with solid nodules (6,956) had a calculable PanCan risk and Lung-RADS score. PanCan accuracy by cancer probabilities < 1%, 1% to 2%, 5% to 15%, and > 15% was similar to corresponding Lung-RADS categories 2, 3, 4A, and 4B for any solid nodule (area under the curve, 0.84 vs 0.84; P = .95) and for nodules identified at baseline (area under the curve, 0.85 vs 0.84; P = .17). When dichotomized by high/low risk, PanCan and Lung-RADS were discordant (P < .001). Participants with risk-gap nodules (n = 543) were distributed across Lung-RADS categories 2 through 4; 41 (8%) had invasive procedures with 23 (4%) having unnecessary invasive procedure use for solid, benign nodules.

INTERPRETATION

PanCan and Lung-RADS had similar overall accuracy for assessing cancer in screening-detected, solid lung nodules with evidence of discordance by subgroup. The existence of Lung-RADS category 4 nodules with a ≥ 3% to 5% PanCan risk may result in unnecessary procedures.

摘要

背景

泛加拿大早期肺癌检测(PanCan)风险模型和肺 CT 筛查报告和数据系统(Lung-RADS)用于估计筛查检测到的结节的癌症概率。这些模型的准确性和一致性需要进一步研究。

研究问题

PanCan 模型和 Lung-RADS 用于估计筛查检测到的实性结节中癌症的概率的性能如何?

研究设计和方法

我们分析了国家肺癌筛查试验低剂量 CT 臂中任何筛查轮次新发现的实性结节的数据,以分配 PanCan 风险和 Lung-RADS 评分。我们根据癌症的预期患病率比较了 PanCan 风险与相应的 Lung-RADS 类别,并使用逻辑回归和测试间一致性检查准确性。我们还分析了仅基线筛查检测到的结节、高(定义为癌症概率≥5%)与低风险结节、PanCan 概率为 3%至 5%但没有等效 Lung-RADS 类别的“风险差距”结节,以及模型的程序使用情况。

结果

有实性结节(6956 个)的参与者可计算 PanCan 风险和 Lung-RADS 评分。任何实性结节(曲线下面积,0.84 与 0.84;P =.95)和基线时发现的结节(曲线下面积,0.85 与 0.84;P =.17)中,癌症概率<1%、1%至 2%、5%至 15%和>15%的 PanCan 准确性与相应的 Lung-RADS 类别 2、3、4A 和 4B 相似。当按高低风险二分时,PanCan 和 Lung-RADS 不一致(P<.001)。风险差距结节(n=543)分布在 Lung-RADS 类别 2 至 4 之间;41 例(8%)进行了有创性程序,23 例(4%)对实性良性结节进行了不必要的有创性程序使用。

解释

PanCan 和 Lung-RADS 用于评估筛查检测到的实性肺结节中的癌症的总体准确性相似,亚组分析存在不一致性。Lung-RADS 类别 4 结节的 PanCan 风险≥3%至 5%可能导致不必要的程序。

相似文献

5
Cancer Risk in Nodules Detected at Follow-Up Lung Cancer Screening CT.随访肺癌筛查 CT 检测到的结节中的癌症风险。
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2022 Apr;218(4):634-641. doi: 10.2214/AJR.21.26927. Epub 2021 Nov 10.
8
10
Protocol and Rationale for the International Lung Screening Trial.国际肺癌筛查试验的方案和原理。
Ann Am Thorac Soc. 2020 Apr;17(4):503-512. doi: 10.1513/AnnalsATS.201902-102OC.

引用本文的文献

本文引用的文献

1
Reduced Lung-Cancer Mortality with Volume CT Screening in a Randomized Trial.随机试验中 CT 容积筛查降低肺癌死亡率
N Engl J Med. 2020 Feb 6;382(6):503-513. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1911793. Epub 2020 Jan 29.
5
Screening for Lung Cancer: CHEST Guideline and Expert Panel Report.肺癌筛查:CHEST 指南和专家小组报告。
Chest. 2018 Apr;153(4):954-985. doi: 10.1016/j.chest.2018.01.016. Epub 2018 Feb 17.

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验