0
Original Research |

Definition of a Positive Test Result in Computed Tomography Screening for Lung Cancer: A Cohort Study

Claudia I. Henschke, PhD, MD; Rowena Yip, MPH; David F. Yankelevitz, MD; James P. Smith, MD, for the International Early Lung Cancer Action Program Investigators*
[+] Article and Author Information

* For a list of members of the International Early Lung Cancer Action Program, see the Appendix.


From Mount Sinai Medical Center and Mount Sinai School of Medicine, New York, New York, and Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, New York.

Grant Support: In part by the Flight Attendant Medical Research Institute, the American Legacy Foundation, Department of Energy (DE-FG02-96SF21260), Israel Cancer Association, The Rogers Family Fund, Yad-Hanadiv Foundation, Jacob and Malka Goldfarb Charitable Foundation, Auen/Berger Foundation, Princess Margaret Foundation, Berger Foundation, Mills Peninsula Hospital Foundation, Columbia University Medical Center, Mount Sinai Medical Center, Weill Medical College of Cornell University, Cornell University, New York Presbyterian Hospital, Swedish Hospital, Christiana Care Helen F. Graham Cancer Center, Holy Cross Hospital, Eisenhower Hospital, Jackson Memorial Hospital Health System, and Evanston Northwestern Healthcare.

Potential Conflicts of Interest: Disclosures can be viewed at www.acponline.org/authors/icmje/ConflictOfInterestForms.do?msNum=M11-2154.

Reproducible Research Statement: Study protocol: Available at www.ielcap.org/professionals/docs/ielcap.pdf. Statistical code and data set: Not available.

Requests for Single Reprints: Claudia I. Henschke, PhD, MD, Department of Radiology, Mount Sinai School of Medicine, 1 Gustave L. Levy Place, New York, NY 10029; e-mail, Claudia.Henschke@mountsinai.org.

Current Author Addresses: Drs. Henschke and Yankelevitz: Department of Radiology, Mount Sinai School of Medicine, 1 Gustave L. Levy Place, New York, NY 10029.

Ms. Yip: Early Lung and Cardiac Action Program, Department of Radiology, Mount Sinai Medical Center, 1 Gustave L. Levy Place, Box 1234, New York, NY 10029.

Dr. Smith: Weill Cornell Medical College, 1300 York Avenue, New York, NY 10065.

Author Contributions: Conception and design: C.I. Henschke, J.P. Smith, D. Yankelevitz.

Analysis and interpretation of the data: C.I. Henschke, R. Yip, D.F. Yankelevitz, J.P. Smith.

Drafting of the article: C.I. Henschke, J.P. Smith, D.F. Yankelevitz.

Critical revision of the article for important intellectual content: C.I. Henschke, R. Yip, J.P. Smith, D.F. Yankelevitz.

Final approval of the article: C.I. Henschke, R. Yip, J.P. Smith, D. F. Yankelevitz.

Provision of study materials or patients: C.I. Henschke.

Statistical expertise: C.I. Henschke, R. Yip.

Obtaining of funding: C.I. Henschke, D.F. Yankelevitz.

Administrative, technical, or logistic support: C.I. Henschke.

Collection and assembly of data: C.I. Henschke, R. Yip.


Ann Intern Med. 2013;158(4):246-252. doi:10.7326/0003-4819-158-4-201302190-00004
Text Size: A A A

Chinese translation

Background: Low-dose computed tomography screening for lung cancer can reduce mortality among high-risk persons, but “false-positive” findings may result in unnecessary evaluations with attendant risks. The effect of alternative thresholds for defining a positive result on the rates of positive results and cancer diagnoses is unknown.

Objective: To assess the frequency of positive results and potential delays in diagnosis in the baseline round of screening by using more restrictive thresholds.

Design: Prospective cohort study.

Setting: Multi-institutional International Early Lung Cancer Action Program.

Patients: 21 136 participants with baseline computed tomography performed between 2006 and 2010.

Measurements: The frequency of solid and part-solid pulmonary nodules and the rate of lung cancer diagnosis by using current (5 mm) and more restrictive thresholds of nodule diameter.

Results: The frequency of positive results in the baseline round by using the current definition of positive result (any parenchymal, solid or part-solid, noncalcified nodule ≥5.0 mm) was 16% (3396/21 136). When alternative threshold values of 6.0, 7.0, 8.0 and 9.0 mm were used, the frequencies of positive results were 10.2% (95% CI, 9.8% to 10.6%), 7.1% (CI, 6.7% to 7.4%), 5.1% (CI, 4.8% to 5.4%), and 4.0% (CI, 3.7% to 4.2%), respectively. Use of these alternative definitions would have reduced the work-up by 36%, 56%, 68%, and 75%, respectively. Concomitantly, lung cancer diagnostics would have been delayed by at most 9 months for 0%, 5.0% (CI, 1.1% to 9.0%), 5.9% (CI, 1.7 to 10.1%), and 6.7% (CI, 2.2% to 11.2%) of the cases of cancer, respectively.

Limitation: This was a retrospective analysis and thus whether delays in diagnosis would have altered outcomes cannot be determined.

Conclusion: These findings suggest that using a threshold of 7 or 8 mm to define positive results in the baseline round of computed tomography screening for lung cancer should be prospectively evaluated to determine whether the benefits of decreasing further work-up outweigh the consequent delay in diagnosis in some patients.

Primary Funding Source: The Flight Attendant Medical Research Institute and the American Legacy Foundation.

Buy This Article

to gain full access to the content and tools.

Want to Subscribe?

Learn more about subscription options

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Figure.

Frequency of a positive result and cases of lung cancer diagnosed within 12 mo of baseline enrollment.

Grahic Jump Location

Tables

References

Letters

NOTE:
Citing articles are presented as examples only. In non-demo SCM6 implementation, integration with CrossRef’s “Cited By” API will populate this tab (http://www.crossref.org/citedby.html).

Comments

Submit a Comment
Submit a Comment

Summary for Patients

Clinical Slide Sets

Terms of Use

The In the Clinic® slide sets are owned and copyrighted by the American College of Physicians (ACP). All text, graphics, trademarks, and other intellectual property incorporated into the slide sets remain the sole and exclusive property of the ACP. The slide sets may be used only by the person who downloads or purchases them and only for the purpose of presenting them during not-for-profit educational activities. Users may incorporate the entire slide set or selected individual slides into their own teaching presentations but may not alter the content of the slides in any way or remove the ACP copyright notice. Users may make print copies for use as hand-outs for the audience the user is personally addressing but may not otherwise reproduce or distribute the slides by any means or media, including but not limited to sending them as e-mail attachments, posting them on Internet or Intranet sites, publishing them in meeting proceedings, or making them available for sale or distribution in any unauthorized form, without the express written permission of the ACP. Unauthorized use of the In the Clinic slide sets will constitute copyright infringement.

Toolkit

Buy This Article

to gain full access to the content and tools.

Want to Subscribe?

Learn more about subscription options

Advertisement

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging & repositioning the boxes below.

Topic Collections
PubMed Articles

Buy This Article

to gain full access to the content and tools.

Want to Subscribe?

Learn more about subscription options

Forgot your password?
Enter your username and email address. We'll send you a reminder to the email address on record.
(Required)
(Required)