Missed and Interval Lung Cancers in an Academic Lung Cancer Screening Program.

IF 1.9 4区 医学 Q3 RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING
Ariadne K DeSimone, Silvia Arora, Kathryn A Schulz, Suzanne C Byrne, Mark M Hammer
{"title":"Missed and Interval Lung Cancers in an Academic Lung Cancer Screening Program.","authors":"Ariadne K DeSimone, Silvia Arora, Kathryn A Schulz, Suzanne C Byrne, Mark M Hammer","doi":"10.1097/RTI.0000000000000842","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To analyze imaging features and pathology of missed and interval lung cancers within an academic lung cancer screening (LCS) program.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>This retrospective study included patients who underwent LCS CT in our health care network between January 2015 and June 2023 and were diagnosed with lung cancer within one year. The most recent prior LCS CT was classified as \"false negative\" (Lung-RADS 1 to 2) or \"true positive\" (Lung-RADS 3 to 4). Cancer stage and pathology were compared between false-negative and true-positive groups in the lung cancer screening program. False-negative cases were retrospectively reviewed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 456 patients were diagnosed with lung cancer. Of these, 432 (95%) were true positive, while 24 (5%) were false negative. Of the 24 false-negative studies, 8 (33.3%) were missed lung cancers, 3 (12.5%) were interval cancers (ie, no nodule visible in retrospect), and 13 (54.2%) were slow-growing ground-glass or part-solid or cystic nodules categorized as Lung-RADS 2. Missed lung cancer locations were: paramediastinal (37.5%, 3/8), perihilar (12.5%, 1/8), and endobronchial (50%, 4/8). There was no statistically significant difference in cancer histology or stage between false-negative and true-positive cases.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Within an academic lung cancer screening program, sensitivity for lung cancer detection was 95%, yet missed and interval lung cancers still occur. Endobronchial lesions are one of the more important sources of misses that are potentially addressable by radiologists.</p><p><strong>Clinical relevance: </strong>The findings of the present study provide insight into missed and interval lung cancers within a lung cancer screening program.</p>","PeriodicalId":49974,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Thoracic Imaging","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Thoracic Imaging","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/RTI.0000000000000842","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: To analyze imaging features and pathology of missed and interval lung cancers within an academic lung cancer screening (LCS) program.

Materials and methods: This retrospective study included patients who underwent LCS CT in our health care network between January 2015 and June 2023 and were diagnosed with lung cancer within one year. The most recent prior LCS CT was classified as "false negative" (Lung-RADS 1 to 2) or "true positive" (Lung-RADS 3 to 4). Cancer stage and pathology were compared between false-negative and true-positive groups in the lung cancer screening program. False-negative cases were retrospectively reviewed.

Results: A total of 456 patients were diagnosed with lung cancer. Of these, 432 (95%) were true positive, while 24 (5%) were false negative. Of the 24 false-negative studies, 8 (33.3%) were missed lung cancers, 3 (12.5%) were interval cancers (ie, no nodule visible in retrospect), and 13 (54.2%) were slow-growing ground-glass or part-solid or cystic nodules categorized as Lung-RADS 2. Missed lung cancer locations were: paramediastinal (37.5%, 3/8), perihilar (12.5%, 1/8), and endobronchial (50%, 4/8). There was no statistically significant difference in cancer histology or stage between false-negative and true-positive cases.

Conclusions: Within an academic lung cancer screening program, sensitivity for lung cancer detection was 95%, yet missed and interval lung cancers still occur. Endobronchial lesions are one of the more important sources of misses that are potentially addressable by radiologists.

Clinical relevance: The findings of the present study provide insight into missed and interval lung cancers within a lung cancer screening program.

学术肺癌筛查项目中的漏诊和间隔期肺癌。
目的:分析学术肺癌筛查(LCS)项目中漏诊和间隔期肺癌的影像学特征和病理。材料和方法:本回顾性研究纳入2015年1月至2023年6月在我们的医疗保健网络中接受LCS CT并在一年内诊断为肺癌的患者。最近的LCS CT被分类为“假阴性”(肺- rads 1至2)或“真阳性”(肺- rads 3至4)。在肺癌筛查程序中,比较假阴性组和真阳性组的癌症分期和病理。对假阴性病例进行回顾性分析。结果:共456例患者被诊断为肺癌。其中,真阳性432例(95%),假阴性24例(5%)。在24例假阴性研究中,8例(33.3%)为漏诊肺癌,3例(12.5%)为间期癌(即回顾未见结节),13例(54.2%)为生长缓慢的磨玻璃或部分实性或囊性结节,归类为lung - rads 2。漏诊部位为:旁膈区(37.5%,3/8)、门周(12.5%,1/8)和支气管内(50%,4/8)。假阴性和真阳性病例在肿瘤组织学和分期上无统计学差异。结论:在一个学术肺癌筛查项目中,肺癌检测的敏感性为95%,但漏检和间隔期肺癌仍时有发生。支气管内病变是漏诊的一个更重要的来源,是潜在的解决放射科医生。临床意义:本研究的发现为肺癌筛查项目中的漏诊和间隔期肺癌提供了见解。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of Thoracic Imaging
Journal of Thoracic Imaging 医学-核医学
CiteScore
7.10
自引率
9.10%
发文量
87
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Journal of Thoracic Imaging (JTI) provides authoritative information on all aspects of the use of imaging techniques in the diagnosis of cardiac and pulmonary diseases. Original articles and analytical reviews published in this timely journal provide the very latest thinking of leading experts concerning the use of chest radiography, computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging, positron emission tomography, ultrasound, and all other promising imaging techniques in cardiopulmonary radiology. Official Journal of the Society of Thoracic Radiology: Japanese Society of Thoracic Radiology Korean Society of Thoracic Radiology European Society of Thoracic Imaging.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信