Top

Published in:

Open Access 30-08-2023 | Lung Cancer | Chest

Performance of Lung-RADS in different target populations: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Authors: Yifei Mao, Jiali Cai, Marjolein A. Heuvelmans, Rozemarijn Vliegenthart, Harry J. M. Groen, Matthijs Oudkerk, Marleen Vonder, Monique D. Dorrius, Geertruida H. de Bock

Published in: European Radiology | Issue 3/2024

Abstract

Objectives

Multiple lung cancer screening studies reported the performance of Lung CT Screening Reporting and Data System (Lung-RADS), but none systematically evaluated its performance across different populations. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the performance of Lung-RADS (versions 1.0 and 1.1) for detecting lung cancer in different populations.

Methods

We performed literature searches in PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and Embase databases on October 21, 2022, for studies that evaluated the accuracy of Lung-RADS in lung cancer screening. A bivariate random-effects model was used to estimate pooled sensitivity and specificity, and heterogeneity was explored in stratified and meta-regression analyses.

Results

A total of 31 studies with 104,224 participants were included. For version 1.0 (27 studies, 95,413 individuals), pooled sensitivity was 0.96 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.90–0.99) and pooled specificity was 0.90 (95% CI: 0.87–0.92). Studies in high-risk populations showed higher sensitivity (0.98 [95% CI: 0.92–0.99] vs. 0.84 [95% CI: 0.50–0.96]) and lower specificity (0.87 [95% CI: 0.85–0.88] vs. 0.95 (95% CI: 0.92–0.97]) than studies in general populations. Non-Asian studies tended toward higher sensitivity (0.97 [95% CI: 0.91–0.99] vs. 0.91 [95% CI: 0.67–0.98]) and lower specificity (0.88 [95% CI: 0.85–0.90] vs. 0.93 [95% CI: 0.88–0.96]) than Asian studies. For version 1.1 (4 studies, 8811 individuals), pooled sensitivity was 0.91 (95% CI: 0.83–0.96) and specificity was 0.81 (95% CI: 0.67–0.90).

Conclusion

Among studies using Lung-RADS version 1.0, considerable heterogeneity in sensitivity and specificity was noted, explained by population type (high risk vs. general), population area (Asia vs. non-Asia), and cancer prevalence.

Clinical relevance statement

Meta-regression of lung cancer screening studies using Lung-RADS version 1.0 showed considerable heterogeneity in sensitivity and specificity, explained by the different target populations, including high-risk versus general populations, Asian versus non-Asian populations, and populations with different lung cancer prevalence.

Key Points

• High-risk population studies showed higher sensitivity and lower specificity compared with studies performed in general populations by using Lung-RADS version 1.0.

• In non-Asian studies, the diagnostic performance of Lung-RADS version 1.0 tended to be better than in Asian studies.

• There are limited studies on the performance of Lung-RADS version 1.1, and evidence is lacking for Asian populations.

Available only for authorised users

Sung H, Ferlay J, Siegel RL et al (2021) Global cancer statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin 71:209–249. https://doi.org/10.3322/caac.21660CrossRefPubMed

Team NLSTR (2011) Reduced lung-cancer mortality with low-dose computed tomographic screening. N Engl J Med 365:395–409. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1102873CrossRef

de Koning HJ, van der Aalst CM, de Jong PA et al (2020) Reduced lung-cancer mortality with volume CT screening in a randomized trial. N Engl J Med 382:503–513. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1911793CrossRefPubMed

Pastorino U, Silva M, Sestini S et al (2019) Prolonged lung cancer screening reduced 10-year mortality in the MILD trial: new confirmation of lung cancer screening efficacy. Ann Oncol 30:1162–1169. https://doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mdz117CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Gierada DS, Pinsky P, Nath H et al (2014) Projected outcomes using different nodule sizes to define a positive CT lung cancer screening examination. J Natl Cancer Inst 106:dju284. https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/dju284CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Heuvelmans MA, Oudkerk M, de Bock GH et al (2013) Optimisation of volume-doubling time cutoff for fast-growing lung nodules in CT lung cancer screening reduces false-positive referrals. Eur Radiol 23:1836–1845. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-013-2799-9CrossRefPubMed

Pinsky PF (2014) Assessing the benefits and harms of low-dose computed tomography screening for lung cancer. Lung Cancer Manag 3:491–498. https://doi.org/10.2217/lmt.14.41CrossRefPubMed

American College of Radiology Committee on Lung-RADS® (2019) Lung-RADS assessment categories, version 1.1. Available via https://www.acr.org/Clinical-Resources/Reporting-and-Data-Systems/Lung-Rads. Accessed 1 May 2021

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 15:1342–1350. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(14)70387-0CrossRefPubMed

10.

Henschke CI, Yip R, Yankelevitz DF, Smith JP (2013) Definition of a positive test result in computed tomography screening for lung cancer. Ann Intern Med 158:246–252. https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-158-4-201302190-00004CrossRefPubMed

11.

Pinsky PF, Gierada DS, Black W et al (2015) Performance of Lung-RADS in the national lung screening trial: a retrospective assessment. Ann Intern Med 162:485–491. https://doi.org/10.7326/M14-2086CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

12.

Lee J, Lim J, Kim Y et al (2019) Development of protocol for Korean Lung Cancer Screening Project (K-LUCAS) to evaluate effectiveness and feasibility to implement national cancer screening program. Cancer Res Treat 51:1285–1294. https://doi.org/10.4143/crt.2018.464CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

13.

Matsuguma H, Mori K, Nakahara R et al (2013) Characteristics of subsolid pulmonary nodules showing growth during follow-up with CT scanning. Chest 143:436–443. https://doi.org/10.1378/chest.11-3306CrossRefPubMed

14.

Chang B, Hwang JH, Choi Y-H et al (2013) Natural history of pure ground-glass opacity lung nodules detected by low-dose CT scan. Chest 143:172–178. https://doi.org/10.1378/chest.11-2501CrossRefPubMed

15.

Gulati CM, Schreiner AM, Libby DM et al (2014) Outcomes of unresected ground-glass nodules with cytology suspicious for adenocarcinoma. J Thorac Oncol 9:685–691. https://doi.org/10.1097/JTO.0000000000000143CrossRefPubMed

16.

Heuvelmans MA, Walter JE, Oudkerk M (2018) Management of baseline and new sub-solid nodules in CT lung cancer screening. Expert Rev Respir Med 12:1–3. https://doi.org/10.1080/17476348.2018.1398087CrossRefPubMed

17.

de Hoop B, van Ginneken B, Gietema H, Prokop M (2012) Pulmonary perifissural nodules on CT scans: rapid growth is not a predictor of malignancy. Radiology 265:611–616. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.12112351CrossRefPubMed

18.

Ahn MI, Gleeson TG, Chan IH et al (2010) Perifissural nodules seen at CT screening for lung cancer. Radiology 254:949–956. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.09090031CrossRefPubMed

19.

Korst RJ, Lee BE, Krinsky GA, Rutledge JR (2011) The utility of automated volumetric growth analysis in a dedicated pulmonary nodule clinic. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 142:372–377. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtcvs.2011.04.015CrossRefPubMed

20.

Mehta HJ, Ravenel JG, Shaftman SR et al (2014) The utility of nodule volume in the context of malignancy prediction for small pulmonary nodules. Chest 145:464–472. https://doi.org/10.1378/chest.13-0708CrossRefPubMed

21.

Kastner J, Hossain R, Jeudy J et al (2021) Lung-RADS version 1.0 versus Lung-RADS version 1.1: comparison of categories using nodules from the National Lung Screening Trial. Radiology 300:199–206. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2021203704CrossRefPubMed

22.

American College of Radiology Committee on Lung-RADS® (2022) Lung-RADS assessment categories 2022. Available via https://www.acr.org/-/media/ACR/Files/RADS/Lung-RADS/Lung-RADS-2022.pdf. Accessed 1 Jan 2023

23.

Jonas DE, Reuland DS, Reddy SM et al (2021) Screening for lung cancer with low-dose computed tomography: updated evidence report and systematic review for the US Preventive Services Task Force. JAMA 325:971. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2021.0377CrossRefPubMed

24.

Guo L, Yu Y, Yang F et al (2023) Accuracy of baseline low-dose computed tomography lung cancer screening: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Chin Med J Publish. https://doi.org/10.1097/CM9.0000000000002353CrossRef

25.

McInnes MDF, Moher D, Thombs BD et al (2018) Preferred reporting items for a systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy studies: the PRISMA-DTA statement. JAMA 319:388. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2017.19163CrossRefPubMed

26.

Cochrane Screening and Diagnostic Test Methods Group (2022) Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy, version 2.0. Available via https://training-cochrane-org.proxy-ub.rug.nl/handbook-diagnostic-test-accuracy. Accessed 1 Jan 2023

27.

Ettinger DS, Wood DE, Aisner DL et al (2021) NCCN guidelines insights: non-small cell lung cancer, version 2.2021. J Natl Compr Canc Netw 19:254–266. https://doi.org/10.6004/jnccn.2021.0013CrossRefPubMed

28.

US Preventive Services Task Force, Krist AH, Davidson KW et al (2021) Screening for lung cancer: US preventive services task force recommendation statement. JAMA 325:962–970. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2021.1117CrossRef

29.

Tammemägi MC, Katki HA, Hocking WG et al (2013) Selection criteria for lung-cancer screening. N Engl J Med 368:728–736. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1211776CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

30.

DeCoster J, Gallucci M, Iselin A-MR (2011) Best practices for using median splits, artificial categorization, and their continuous alternatives. J Exp Psychopathol 2:197–209. https://doi.org/10.5127/jep.008310CrossRef

31.

Whiting PF, Rutjes AWS, Westwood ME et al (2011) QUADAS-2: a revised tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies. Ann Intern Med 155:529–536. https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-155-8-201110180-00009CrossRefPubMed

32.

Higgins JPT, Thompson SG (2002) Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. Stat Med 21:1539–1558. https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.1186CrossRefPubMed

33.

Higgins JPT, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, Altman DG (2003) Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ 327:557–560. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.327.7414.557CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

34.

Dwamena B (2009) MIDAS: Stata module for meta-analytical integration of diagnostic test accuracy studies. Available via https://ideas.repec.org/c/boc/bocode/s456880.html. Accessed 1 May 2021

35.

McKee BJ, Regis SM, McKee AB et al (2016) Performance of ACR Lung-RADS in a clinical CT lung screening program. J Am Coll Radiol 13:R25–R29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacr.2015.12.009CrossRefPubMed

36.

Halpenny DF, Cunningham JD, Long NM et al (2016) Patients with a previous history of malignancy undergoing lung cancer screening: clinical characteristics and radiologic findings. J Thorac Oncol 11:1447–1452. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtho.2016.05.006CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

37.

Guichet PL, Liu BY, Desai B et al (2018) Preliminary results of lung cancer screening in a socioeconomically disadvantaged population. AJR Am J Roentgenol 210:489–496. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.17.18853CrossRefPubMed

38.

Jacobs CD, Jafari ME (2017) Early results of lung cancer screening and radiation dose assessment by low-dose CT at a community hospital. Clin Lung Cancer 18:e327–e331. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cllc.2017.01.011CrossRefPubMed

39.

Marshall HM, Zhao H, Bowman RV et al (2017) The effect of different radiological models on diagnostic accuracy and lung cancer screening performance. Thorax 72:1147–1150. https://doi.org/10.1136/thoraxjnl-2016-209624CrossRefPubMed

40.

Hsu H-T, Tang E-K, Wu M-T et al (2018) Modified Lung-RADS improves performance of screening LDCT in a population with high prevalence of non–smoking-related lung cancer. Acad Radiol 25:1240–1251. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acra.2018.01.012CrossRefPubMed

41.

Kang H-R, Cho JY, Lee SH et al (2019) Role of low-dose computerized tomography in lung cancer screening among never-smokers. J Thorac Oncol 14:436–444. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtho.2018.11.002CrossRefPubMed

42.

Kim HY, Jung K-W, Lim KY et al (2018) Lung cancer screening with low-dose CT in female never smokers: retrospective cohort study with long-term national data follow-up. Cancer Res Treat 50:748–756. https://doi.org/10.4143/crt.2017.312CrossRefPubMed

43.

Bhandari S, Tripathi P, Pham D et al (2019) Performance of community-based lung cancer screening program in a Histoplasma endemic region. Lung Cancer 136:102–104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lungcan.2019.08.026CrossRefPubMed

44.

Healey TT, Singer T, Baird GL, Agarwal S (2019) Implementation of lung imaging reporting and data systems in a community private radiology practice: it can be done. J Am Coll Radiol 16:1688–1690. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacr.2019.05.046CrossRefPubMed

45.

Kaminetzky M, Milch HS, Shmukler A et al (2019) Effectiveness of Lung-RADS in reducing false-positive results in a diverse, underserved, urban lung cancer screening cohort. J Am Coll Radiol 16:419–426. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacr.2018.07.011CrossRefPubMed

46.

Meier-Schroers M, Homsi R, Gieseke J et al (2019) Lung cancer screening with MRI: evaluation of MRI for lung cancer screening by comparison of LDCT- and MRI-derived Lung-RADS categories in the first two screening rounds. Eur Radiol 29:898–905. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-018-5607-8CrossRefPubMed

47.

Ouyang B, Guo J, Zhou W et al (2019) Lung cancer screening with low-dose spiral CT in a unit staff: results of the baseline screening. Zhong Nan Da Xue Xue Bao Yi Xue Ban 44:1252–1257. https://doi.org/10.11817/j.issn.1672-7347.2019.190235

48.

da S Teles GB, Macedo ACS, Chate RC et al (2020) LDCT lung cancer screening in populations at different risk for lung cancer. BMJ Open Resp Res 7:e000455. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjresp-2019-000455CrossRef

49.

Tremblay A, Taghizadeh N, MacGregor J-H et al (2019) Application of lung-screening reporting and data system versus pan-Canadian early detection of lung cancer nodule risk calculation in the Alberta Lung Cancer Screening Study. J Am Coll Radiol 16:1425–1432. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacr.2019.03.006CrossRefPubMed

50.

BarbosaJr EJM, Yang R, Hershman M (2021) Real world lung cancer CT screening performance, smoking behavior, and adherence to recommendations: Lung-RADS category and smoking status predict adherence. AJR Am J Roentgenol 216:919–926. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.20.23637CrossRef

51.

Hsu Y-C, Tsai Y-H, Weng H-H et al (2020) Artificial neural networks improve LDCT lung cancer screening: a comparative validation study. BMC Cancer 20:1023. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12885-020-07465-1CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

52.

Kessler A, Peng R, Mardakhaev E et al (2020) Performance of the Vancouver risk calculator compared with Lung-RADS in an urban, diverse clinical lung cancer screening cohort. Radiol Imaging Cancer 2:e190021. https://doi.org/10.1148/rycan.2020190021CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

53.

Kim H, Kim HY, Goo JM, Kim Y (2020) Lung cancer CT screening and Lung-RADS in a tuberculosis-endemic country: the Korean Lung Cancer Screening Project (K-LUCAS). Radiology 296:181–188. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2020192283CrossRefPubMed

54.

Maller B, Simmons VN, Byrne MM, Tanvetyanon T (2021) Characteristics and outcomes of lung cancer screening among individuals with or without cancer history. Clin Lung Cancer 22:e629–e636. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cllc.2020.12.006CrossRefPubMed

55.

O’Dwyer E, Halpenny DF, Ginsberg MS (2021) Lung cancer screening in patients with previous malignancy: is this cohort at increased risk for malignancy? Eur Radiol 31:458–467. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-020-07026-xCrossRefPubMed

56.

White LJ, Kaur A, Lapel RT et al (2020) Lung cancer screening at a military treatment facility: a retrospective review. Mil Med 185:e864–e869. https://doi.org/10.1093/milmed/usz386CrossRefPubMed

57.

Darling GE, Tammemägi MC, Schmidt H et al (2021) Organized lung cancer screening pilot: informing a province-wide program in Ontario, Canada. Ann Thorac Surg 111:1805–1811. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.athoracsur.2020.07.051CrossRefPubMed

58.

Erkmen CP, Dako F, Moore R et al (2021) Adherence to annual lung cancer screening with low-dose CT scan in a diverse population. Cancer Causes Control 32:291–298. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10552-020-01383-0CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

59.

Parang S, Bhavin J (2021) LDCT Screening in smokers in India—a pilot, proof-of-concept study. Indian J Radiol Imaging 31:318–322. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0041-1734227CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

60.

Regis SM, Borondy-Kitts A, McKee AB et al (2022) Outcomes of positive and suspicious findings in clinical computed tomography lung cancer screening and the road ahead. Ann Am Thorac Soc 19:1371–1378. https://doi.org/10.1513/AnnalsATS.202106-733OCCrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

61.

Silva M, Milanese G, Sestini S et al (2021) Lung cancer screening by nodule volume in Lung-RADS v1.1: negative baseline CT yields potential for increased screening interval. Eur Radiol 31:1956–1968. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-020-07275-wCrossRefPubMed

62.

Oshiro CES, Frankland TB, Mor J et al (2022) Lung cancer screening by race and ethnicity in an integrated health system in Hawaii. JAMA Netw Open 5:e2144381. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.44381CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

63.

Panina A, Kaidarova D, Zholdybay Z et al (2022) Lung cancer screening with low-dose chest computed tomography: experience from radon-contaminated regions in Kazakhstan. J Prev Med Public Health 55:273–279. https://doi.org/10.3961/jpmph.21.600CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

64.

Lam S (2019) Lung Cancer Screening in Never-Smokers. J Thorac Oncol 14:336–337. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtho.2018.12.019CrossRefPubMed

65.

Zhou F, Zhou C (2018) Lung cancer in never smokers-the East Asian experience. Transl Lung Cancer Res 7:450–463. https://doi.org/10.21037/tlcr.2018.05.14CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

66.

Kerpel-Fronius A, Tammemägi M, Cavic M et al (2022) Screening for lung cancer in individuals who never smoked: an International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer Early Detection and Screening Committee Report. J Thorac Oncol 17:56–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtho.2021.07.031CrossRefPubMed

67.

Yang X, Wisselink HJ, Vliegenthart R et al (2022) Association between chest CT–defined emphysema and lung cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Radiology 304:322–330. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.212904CrossRefPubMed

68.

Leeflang MMG, Rutjes AWS, Reitsma JB et al (2013) Variation of a test’s sensitivity and specificity with disease prevalence. CMAJ 185:E537-544. https://doi.org/10.1503/cmaj.121286CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

69.

van Stralen KJ, Stel VS, Reitsma JB et al (2009) Diagnostic methods I: sensitivity, specificity, and other measures of accuracy. Kidney Int 75:1257–1263. https://doi.org/10.1038/ki.2009.92CrossRefPubMed

70.

Infante MV, Cardillo G (2020) Lung cancer screening in never-smokers: facts and remaining issues. Eur Respir J 56:2002949. https://doi.org/10.1183/13993003.02949-2020CrossRefPubMed

Title: Performance of Lung-RADS in different target populations: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Authors: Yifei Mao
Jiali Cai
Marjolein A. Heuvelmans
Rozemarijn Vliegenthart
Harry J. M. Groen
Matthijs Oudkerk
Marleen Vonder
Monique D. Dorrius
Geertruida H. de Bock
Publication date: 30-08-2023
Publisher: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Keywords: Lung Cancer
Lung Cancer
Lung Cancer
Published in: European Radiology / Issue 3/2024
Print ISSN: 0938-7994
Electronic ISSN: 1432-1084
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-023-10049-9

2024 ASCO Annual Meeting

Springer Medicine

Performance of Lung-RADS in different target populations: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Abstract

Objectives

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Clinical relevance statement

Key Points

2024 ASCO Annual Meeting

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Objectives

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Clinical relevance statement

Key Points

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 3/2024

CT acquisition parameter selection in the real world: impacts on radiation dose and variation amongst 155 institutions

Achieving imaging and computational reproducibility on multiparametric MRI radiomics features in brain tumor diagnosis: phantom and clinical validation

High-pitch CT pulmonary angiography (CTPA) with ultra-low contrast medium volume for the detection of pulmonary embolism: a comparison with standard CTPA

Non-invasive differential diagnosis of teratomas from other intracranial germ cell tumours using MRI-based fractal and radiomic analyses

Impact of vessel morphology on CT-derived fractional-flow-reserve in non-obstructive coronary artery disease in right coronary artery

Assessment of the glymphatic function in children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder