4.7 Article

Relationship and Prognostic Value of Modified Coronary Artery Calcium Score, FEV1, and Emphysema in Lung Cancer Screening Population: The MILD Trial

期刊

RADIOLOGY
卷 262, 期 2, 页码 460-467

出版社

RADIOLOGICAL SOC NORTH AMERICA
DOI: 10.1148/radiol.11110364

关键词

-

资金

  1. Associazione Italiana per la Ricerca sul Cancro Funding Source: Custom

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: To assess the relationship between a modified coronary artery calcium (mCAC) score and both forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) and pulmonary emphysema and the associations of such factors with all-cause mortality and cardiovascular events (CVEs) in a lung cancer computed tomographic (CT) screening trial. Materials and Methods: In this institutional review board-approved study, both clinical and low-dose CT data were evaluated in a cohort of heavy smokers consecutively recruited by the Multicentric Italian Lung Detection, or MILD, trial. Low-dose CT images were analyzed by using software that allowed quantification of mCAC, mean lung attenuation (MLA), and total extent of emphysema. The correlations between mCAC, percentage predicted FEV1, MLA, and emphysema extent were tested by using the Pearson correlation coefficient. Adjusted multiple logistic regression models were applied to assess the relationships between mCAC, FEV1, MLA, and emphysema extent and all-cause mortality and CVEs. Results: The final study cohort consisted of 1159 smokers. There were no significant correlations between mCAC score and FEV1 (r = -0.03, P = .4), MLA (r = -0.01, P = .7), or emphysema extent (r = 0.02, P = .6). An mCAC score greater than 400 was the only factor that was independently associated with both all-cause mortality (odds ratio [OR]: 3.73; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.05, 13.32; P = .04) and CVEs (OR: 2.87; 95% CI: 1.13, 7.27; P = .03). Conclusion: mCAC is a better predictor of CVE and all-cause mortality than FEV1 and emphysema extent and may contribute to the identification of high-risk individuals in a lung cancer screening setting.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据