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.
Chest. 2021 Mar;159(3):1273-1282. doi: 10.1016/j.chest.2020.10.040. Epub 2020 Oct 23.
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.
What is the performance of the PanCan model and Lung-RADS to estimate the probability of cancer in screening-detected solid nodules?
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.
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.
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.
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。
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?
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。
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。
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。