4.4 Article

Performance of ACR Lung-RADS in a Clinical CT Lung Screening Program

Journal

JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN COLLEGE OF RADIOLOGY
Volume 12, Issue 3, Pages 273-276

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jacr.2014.08.004

Keywords

Lung-RADS; CT lung screening

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose: The aim of this study was to assess the effect of applying ACR Lung-RADS in a clinical CT lung screening program on the frequency of positive and false-negative findings. Methods: Consecutive, clinical CT lung screening examinations performed from January 2012 through May 2014 were retroactively reclassified using the new ACR Lung-PADS structured reporting system. All examinations had initially been interpreted by radiologists credentialed in structured CT lung screening reporting following the National Comprehensive Cancer Network's Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology: Lung Cancer Screening (version 1.2012), which incorporated positive thresholds modeled after those in the National Lung Screening Trial. The positive rate, number of false-negative findings, and positive predictive value were recalculated using the ACR Lung-PADS-specific positive solid/part-solid nodule diameter threshold of 6 mm and nonsolid (ground-glass) threshold of 2 cm. False negatives were defined as cases reclassified as benign under ACR Lung-RADS that were diagnosed with malignancies within 12 months of the baseline examination. Results: A total of 2,180 high-risk patients underwent baseline CT lung screening during the study interval; no clinical follow-up was available in 577 patients (26%). ACR Lung-RADS reduced the overall positive rate from 27.6% to 10.6%. No false negatives were present in the 152 patients with >12-month follow-up reclassified as benign. Applying ACR Lung-RADS increased the positive predictive value for diagnosed malignancy in 1,603 patients with follow-up from 6.9% to 17.3%. Conclusions: The application of ACR Lung-RADS increased the positive predictive value in our CT lung screening cohort by a factor of 2.5, to 17.3%, without increasing the number of examinations with false-negative results.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available