Improved False-Positive Rates and the Overestimation of Unintended Harm from Lung Cancer Screening
Concern over high false-positive rates and the potential for unintended harm to patients is a critical component of the lack of widespread adoption of lung cancer screening.
An institutional database was used to identify patients who underwent lung cancer screening between 2/2015 and 2/2018 at Rush University Medical Center and Rush Oak Park Hospital. Reads were executed by dedicated thoracic radiologists and communicated using the Lung Imaging Reporting and Data System (Lung-RADS V.1).
Six hundred and four patients were screened over the study period. We identified 21 primary lung cancers and 8 incidental cancers. We identified a false-positive rate of 17.5%. Only 9 patients underwent further investigative workup for benign disease (5.3%); however, only 4 (2.9%) of those patients were found to have inflammatory or infectious lesions, which are common mimickers of lung cancer. Excluding Lung-RADS category 3 for the purpose of quantifying risk of unintended harm from unnecessary procedures, we found a 6.9% false-positive rate, while diagnosing 25% of all Lung-RADS category 4 patients with primary lung cancer.
False-positive rates in lung cancer screening programs continue to decline with improved radiologic expertise. Additionally, false-positive reporting overestimates the risk of unintended harm from further investigative procedures as only a percentage of positive findings are generally considered for tissue diagnosis (i.e., Lung-RADS category 4).
KeywordsLung cancer Lung cancer screening Lung-RADS Lung nodule
Lung cancer screening
Low-dose computed tomography
National Lung Screening Trial
Lung Imaging Reporting and Data System
United Stages Preventative Services Task Force
Video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery
National comprehensive care network
Chemotherapy and radiation treatment
Number needed to diagnose
All authors had full access to the data in the study and takes full responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare no conflicts of interest
- 1.Aberle DR, Adams AM, Berg CD et al (2001) Reduced lung-cancer mortality with low-dose computed tomographic screening. New Engl J Med 365(5):395–409Google Scholar
- 2.Gotzsche PC, Nielsen M. Screening for breast cancer with Mammography. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011;(1)CD001877Google Scholar
- 4.Amer RR, Yasky AF, Zawaki AH (2017) Lung cancer screening: beliefs and recommendations of primary care physicians at the National Guard Hospital (NGHA). Glob J Medi Res 17(2):7–15Google Scholar