Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress 2023 EHA Congress 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

A round-up of the ONWARDS phase 3 clinical trials evaluating the novel weekly insulin icodec in people with diabetes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
European Radiology
Published in: European Radiology 11/2016

01-11-2016 | Chest

Low-dose computed tomography for lung cancer screening: comparison of performance between annual and biennial screen

Authors: Nicola Sverzellati, M. Silva, G. Calareso, C. Galeone, A. Marchianò, S. Sestini, G. Sozzi, U. Pastorino

Published in: European Radiology | Issue 11/2016

Login to get access

Abstract

Objectives

To compare the performance metrics of two different strategies of lung cancer screening by low-dose computed tomography (LDCT), namely, annual (LDCT1) or biennial (LDCT2) screen.

Methods

Recall rate, detection rate, interval cancers, sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values (PPV and NPV, respectively) were compared between LDCT1 and LDCT2 arms of the MILD trial over the first seven (T0-T6; median follow-up 7.3 years) and four rounds (T0-T3; median follow-up 7.3 years), respectively.

Results

1152 LDCT1 and 1151 LDCT2 participants underwent a total of 6893 and 4715 LDCT scans, respectively. The overall recall rate was higher in LDCT2 arm (6.97 %) than in LDCT1 arm (5.81 %) (p = 0.01), which was counterbalanced by the overall lower number of LDCT scans. No difference was observed for the overall detection rate (0.56 % in both arms). The two LDCT arms had similar specificity (99.2 % in both arms), sensitivity (73.5 %, in LDCT2 vs. 68.5 % in LDCT1, p = 0.62), PPV (42.4 %, in LDCT2, vs. 40.6 %, in LDCT1, p = 0.83) and NPV (99.8 %, in LDCT2 vs. 99.7 %, in LDCT1, p = 0.71).

Conclusion

Biennial screen may save about one third of LDCT scans with similar performance indicators as compared to annual screening.

Key Points

• Biennial LDCT screening may be as efficient as the annual screening.
• Annual and biennial LDCT screening have similar frequency of interval lung cancers.
• Biennial screening may save about one third of LDCT scans.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
Saghir Z, Dirksen A, Ashraf H et al (2012) CT screening for lung cancer brings forward early disease. The randomised Danish Lung Cancer Screening Trial: status after five annual screening rounds with low-dose CT. Thorax 67:296–301CrossRefPubMed
2.
Pastorino U, Rossi M, Rosato V et al (2012) Annual or biennial CT screening versus observation in heavy smokers: 5-year results of the MILD trial. Eur J Cancer Prev 21:308–315CrossRefPubMed
3.
National Lung Screening Trial Research T, Aberle DR, Adams AM et al (2011) Reduced lung-cancer mortality with low-dose computed tomographic screening. N Engl J Med 365:395–409CrossRef
4.
Infante M, Cavuto S, Lutman FR, et al (2015) Long-term Follow-up Results of the DANTE Trial, a Randomized Study of Lung Cancer Screening with Spiral Computed Tomography. Am J Respir Crit Care Med
5.
Heuvelmans MA, Vliegenthart R, Oudkerk M (2015) Contributions of the European trials (European randomized screening group) in computed tomography lung cancer screening. J Thorac Imaging 30:101–107CrossRefPubMed
6.
Field JK, Hansell DM, Duffy SW, Baldwin DR (2013) CT screening for lung cancer: countdown to implementation. Lancet Oncol 14:e591–e600CrossRefPubMed
7.
Moyer VA, Force USPST (2014) Screening for lung cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. Ann Intern Med 160:330–338PubMed
8.
9.
de Koning HJ, Meza R, Plevritis SK et al (2014) Benefits and harms of computed tomography lung cancer screening strategies: a comparative modeling study for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Ann Intern Med 160:311–320CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
10.
Marchiano A, Calabro E, Civelli E et al (2009) Pulmonary nodules: volume repeatability at multidetector CT lung cancer screening. Radiology 251:919–925CrossRefPubMed
11.
Horeweg N, Scholten ET, de Jong PA et al (2014) Detection of lung cancer through low-dose CT screening (NELSON): a prespecified analysis of screening test performance and interval cancers. Lancet Oncol 15:1342–1350CrossRefPubMed
12.
Goldstraw P, Crowley J, Chansky K et al (2007) The IASLC Lung Cancer Staging Project: proposals for the revision of the TNM stage groupings in the forthcoming (seventh) edition of the TNM Classification of malignant tumours. J Thorac Oncol 2:706–714CrossRefPubMed
13.
Seigneurin A, Field JK, Gachet A, Duffy SW (2014) A systematic review of the characteristics associated with recall rates, detection rates and positive predictive values of computed tomography screening for lung cancer. Ann Oncol 25:781–791CrossRefPubMed
14.
National Lung Screening Trial Research T, Church TR, Black WC et al (2013) Results of initial low-dose computed tomographic screening for lung cancer. N Engl J Med 368:1980–1991CrossRef
15.
16.
Becker N, Motsch E, Gross ML et al (2012) Randomized study on early detection of lung cancer with MSCT in Germany: study design and results of the first screening round. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol 138:1475–1486CrossRefPubMed
17.
Field JK, van Klaveren R, Pedersen JH et al (2013) European randomized lung cancer screening trials: Post NLST. J Surg Oncol 108:280–286CrossRefPubMed
18.
Becker N, Motsch E, Gross ML, et al. (2015) Randomised study on early detection of lung cancer with MSCT in Germany: results of the first 3 years of follow-up after randomisation. J Thorac Oncol
Metadata
Title
Low-dose computed tomography for lung cancer screening: comparison of performance between annual and biennial screen
Authors
Nicola Sverzellati
M. Silva
G. Calareso
C. Galeone
A. Marchianò
S. Sestini
G. Sozzi
U. Pastorino
Publication date
01-11-2016
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in
European Radiology / Issue 11/2016
Print ISSN: 0938-7994
Electronic ISSN: 1432-1084
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-016-4228-3

Other articles of this Issue 11/2016

European Radiology 11/2016 Go to the issue

Computed Tomography

Gouty arthritis: the diagnostic and therapeutic impact of dual-energy CT

Cardiac

Differentiation of myocardial ischemia and infarction assessed by dynamic computed tomography perfusion imaging and comparison with cardiac magnetic resonance and single-photon emission computed tomography

Magnetic Resonance

MR diagnosis of diaphragmatic endometriosis

Chest

Diffusion weighted imaging in cystic fibrosis disease: beyond morphological imaging

Interventional

Benign biliary strictures refractory to standard bilioplasty treated using polydoxanone biodegradable biliary stents: retrospective multicentric data analysis on 107 patients

Interventional

First clinical experience with a dedicated MRI-guided high-intensity focused ultrasound system for breast cancer ablation