Advertisement

European Radiology

, Volume 17, Issue 6, pp 1474–1482 | Cite as

Neglectable benefit of searching for incidental findings in the Dutch--Belgian lung cancer screening trial (NELSON) using low-dose multidetector CT

  • J. C. M. van de WielEmail author
  • Y. Wang
  • D. M. Xu
  • H. J. van der Zaag-Loonen
  • E. J. van der Jagt
  • R. J. van Klaveren
  • M. Oudkerk
  • on behalf of the NELSON study group
Chest

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to prospectively determine the frequency and spectrum of incidental findings (IFs) and their clinical implications in a high risk population for lung cancer undergoing low-dose multidetector computed tomography (MDCT) screening for lung cancer. Scans of 1,929 participants were evaluated for lung lesions and IFs by two radiologists. IFs were categorised as not clinically relevant or possibly clinically relevant. Findings were considered possibly clinically relevant if they could require further evaluation or could have substantial clinical implications. All possibly clinically relevant IFs were reviewed by a third radiologist, who determined its clinical relevance. Of all 1,929 participants, 1,410 (73%) had not clinically relevant IFs and 163 (8%) had possibly clinically relevant IFs of which 129 (79%) were indeed considered clinically relevant. Additional imaging was performed mainly by ultrasound (112 of 118, 96%). All but one lesion were concluded to be benign, mostly cysts (n = 115, 80%). Only 21 (1%) participants had findings with clinical implications. In one participant a malignancy was found, yet without any clinical benefit since no curative treatment was possible. Based on our results, we advise against systematically searching for and reporting of IFs in lung cancer screening studies using low-dose MDCT.

Keywords

Lung cancer Screening Low-dose computed tomography Incidental findings 

Abbreviations

NELSON: “Nederlands-Leuvens Longkanker Screenings Onderzoek”

Dutch--Belgian lung cancer screening trial; four participating hospitals of which three are located in The Netherlands (University Medical Centre Groningen, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Kennemer Gasthuis Haarlem) and one in Belgium (University Hospital Gasthuisberg Leuven)

Notes

Acknowledgements

We want to thank P.P. Taverne and H. ten Bhömer for their efforts concerning data collection and management. Furthermore we want to thank C. van Iersel and R. Faber for providing us the population data from the central NELSON databases.

The NELSON trial is financially supported by Zorg Onderzoek Nederland-Medische Wetenschappen (ZonMW), Dutch Cancer Society (NKB-KWF), Rotterdam Oncologic Thoracic Study Group (ROTS), Erasmus Trust Fund, G. Ph. Verhagen Foundation, Flemish Anti-Cancer Alliance (VLK), Stichting Centraal Fonds Reserves van Voormalig Vrijwillige Ziekenfondsverzekeringen (RvvZ), and Siemens Germany.

The authors certify that they have not entered into any agreement that could interfere with their access to the data on the research, nor upon their ability to analyse the data independently, to prepare manuscripts, and to publish them.

References

  1. 1.
    Hartman TE, Swensen SJ (2005) CT screening for lung cancer. Semin Roentgenol 40(2):193–196, AprilPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Furtado CD, Aguirre DA, Sirlin CB, Dang D, Stamato SK, Lee P, Sani F, Brown MA, Levin DL, Casola G (2005) Whole-body CT screening: spectrum of findings and recommendations in 1192 patients. Radiology 237(2):385–394, NovemberPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Gleeson FV (2006) Is screening for lung cancer using low dose spiral CT scanning worthwhile? Thorax 61(1):5–7, JanuaryPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    MacRedmond R, McVey G, Lee M, Costello RW, Kenny D, Foley C, Logan PM (2006) Screening for lung cancer using low dose CT scanning: results of 2 year follow up. Thorax 61(1):54–56, JanuaryPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Swensen SJ, Jett JR, Hartman TE, Midthun DE, Sloan JA, Sykes AM, Aughenbaugh GL, Clemens MA (2003) Lung cancer screening with CT: Mayo clinic experience. Radiology 226(3):756–761, MarchPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Diederich S, Hansen J, Wormanns D (2005) Resolving small pulmonary nodules: CT features. Eur Radiol 15(10):2064–2069, OctoberPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Henschke CI, McCauley DI, Yankelevitz DF, Naidich DP, McGuinness G, Miettinen OS, Libby DM, Pasmantier MW, Koizumi J, Altorki NK, Smith JP (1999) Early Lung Cancer Action Project: overall design and findings from baseline screening. Lancet 354(9173):99–105, July 10PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Henschke CI, Yankelevitz DF, Libby D, Kimmel M (2002) CT screening for lung cancer: the first ten years. Cancer J 8(Suppl 1):S47–S54, MayPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Wormanns D, Ludwig K, Beyer F, Heindel W, Diederich S (2005) Detection of pulmonary nodules at multirow-detector CT: effectiveness of double reading to improve sensitivity at standard-dose and low-dose chest CT. Eur Radiol 15(1):14–22, JanuaryPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Diederich S, Lenzen H, Windmann R, Puskas Z, Yelbuz TM, Henneken S, Klaiber T, Eameri M, Roos N, Peters PE (1999) Pulmonary nodules: experimental and clinical studies at low-dose CT. Radiology 213(1):289–298, OctoberPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Rusinek H, Naidich DP, McGuinness G, Leitman BS, McCauley DI, Krinsky GA, Clayton K, Cohen H (1998) Pulmonary nodule detection: low-dose versus conventional CT. Radiology 209(1):243–249, OctoberPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gluecker TM, Johnson CD, Wilson LA, Maccarty RL, Welch TJ, Vanness DJ, Ahlquist DA (2003) Extracolonic findings at CT colonography: evaluation of prevalence and cost in a screening population. Gastroenterology 124(4):911–916, AprilPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hara AK, Johnson CD, Maccarty RL, Welch TJ (2000) Incidental extracolonic findings at CT colonography. Radiology 215(2):353–357, MayPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hellstrom M, Svensson MH, Lasson A (2004) Extracolonic and incidental findings on CT colonography (virtual colonoscopy). AJR Am J Roentgenol 182(3):631–638, MarchPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    MacRedmond R, Logan PM, Lee M, Kenny D, Foley C, Costello RW (2004) Screening for lung cancer using low dose CT scanning. Thorax 59(3):237–241, MarchPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ng CS, Doyle TC, Courtney HM, Campbell GA, Freeman AH, Dixon AK (2004) Extracolonic findings in patients undergoing abdomino-pelvic CT for suspected colorectal carcinoma in the frail and disabled patient. Clin Radiol 59(5):421–430, MayPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Spreng A, Netzer P, Mattich J, Dinkel HP, Vock P, Hoppe H (2005) Importance of extracolonic findings at IV contrast medium-enhanced CT colonography versus those at non-enhanced CT colonography. Eur Radiol 15(10):2088–2095, OctoberPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Xiong T, Richardson M, Woodroffe R, Halligan S, Morton D, Lilford RJ (2005) Incidental lesions found on CT colonography: their nature and frequency. Br J Radiol 78(925):22–29, JanuaryPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Yee J, Kumar NN, Godara S, Casamina JA, Hom R, Galdino G, Dell P, Liu D (2005) Extracolonic abnormalities discovered incidentally at CT colonography in a male population. Radiology 236(2):519–526, AugustPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • J. C. M. van de Wiel
    • 1
    Email author
  • Y. Wang
    • 1
  • D. M. Xu
    • 1
  • H. J. van der Zaag-Loonen
    • 1
  • E. J. van der Jagt
    • 1
  • R. J. van Klaveren
    • 2
  • M. Oudkerk
    • 1
  • on behalf of the NELSON study group
  1. 1.University Medical Centre GroningenUniversity of GroningenGroningenThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Department of PulmonologyErasmus Medical CentreRotterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations