A simple assessment of lung nodule location for reduction in unnecessary invasive procedures

C Matthew Kinsey, Ehab Billatos, Vitor Mori, Ben Tonelli, Bernard F Cole, Fenghai Duan, Helga Marques, Isaac de la Bruere, Jorge Onieva, Rubén San José Estépar, Alyx Cleveland, Dan Idelkope, Chris Stevenson, Jason H T Bates, Denise Aberle, Avi Spira, George Washko, Raúl San José Estépar, C Matthew Kinsey, Ehab Billatos, Vitor Mori, Ben Tonelli, Bernard F Cole, Fenghai Duan, Helga Marques, Isaac de la Bruere, Jorge Onieva, Rubén San José Estépar, Alyx Cleveland, Dan Idelkope, Chris Stevenson, Jason H T Bates, Denise Aberle, Avi Spira, George Washko, Raúl San José Estépar

Abstract

Background: CT screening for lung cancer results in a significant mortality reduction but is complicated by invasive procedures performed for evaluation of the many detected benign nodules. The purpose of this study was to evaluate measures of nodule location within the lung as predictors of malignancy.

Methods: We analyzed images and data from 3,483 participants in the National Lung Screening Trial (NLST). All nodules (4-20 mm) were characterized by 3D geospatial location using a Cartesian coordinate system and evaluated in logistic regression analysis. Model development and probability cutpoint selection was performed in the NLST testing set. The Geospatial test was then validated in the NLST testing set, and subsequently replicated in a new cohort of 147 participants from The Detection of Early Lung Cancer Among Military Personnel (DECAMP) Consortium.

Results: The Geospatial Test, consisting of the superior-inferior distance (Z distance), nodule diameter, and radial distance (carina to nodule) performed well in both the NLST validation set (AUC 0.85) and the DECAMP replication cohort (AUC 0.75). A negative Geospatial Test resulted in a less than 2% risk of cancer across all nodule diameters. The Geospatial Test correctly reclassified 19.7% of indeterminate nodules with a diameter over 6mm as benign, while only incorrectly classifying 1% of cancerous nodules as benign. In contrast, the parsimonious Brock Model applied to the same group of nodules correctly reclassified 64.5% of indeterminate nodules as benign but resulted in misclassification of a cancer as benign in 18.2% of the cases. Applying the Geospatial test would result in reducing invasive procedures performed for benign lesions by 11.3% with a low rate of misclassification (1.3%). In contrast, the Brock model applied to the same group of patients results in decreasing invasive procedures for benign lesion by 39.0% but misclassifying 21.1% of cancers as benign.

Conclusions: Utilizing information about geospatial location within the lung improves risk assessment for indeterminate lung nodules and may reduce unnecessary procedures.

Trial registration: NCT00047385, NCT01785342.

Keywords: Lung nodule; nodule location; non-small cell lung cancer.

Conflict of interest statement

Conflicts of Interest: All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form (available at https://dx.doi.org/10.21037/jtd-20-3093). CMK reports grant funding from the NIH, consulting fees and clinical trial funding from Johnson and Johnson. CMK is a consultant and equity holder for Quantitative Imaging Solutions, and sits on the Board of Directors of the American Association of Bronchology and Interventional Pulmonology and the Prevention Committee of the Alliance for Oncology Clinical Trials. EB reports grant funding from the Department of Defense, Johnson and Johnson, and the National Cancer Institute. VM reports funding from the Damon Runyon Cancer Research Foundation and CAPES (Brazil). HM reports grant funding from Novartis, Janssen, and the Department of Defense. BT, AC, and ID, and Ruben SJ report consulting fees from Quantitative Imaging Services. CS reports Johnson and Johnson funding for DECAMP, and is employed by and owns stock in Johnson and Johnson. DA reports grant funding from American College of Radiology, Boston University, the NIH, and the Kaiser Foundation/PCORI, honoraria from the NIH, Department of Defense, International Symposium on Clinical Update in Respiratory Medicine, Cancer Research UC, American Lung Association, Japanese Society for CT screening, and grant support from the Early Detection Research Network, Molecular and Cellular Characterization of Screen-Detected Lesions Consortium, Department of Defense, International Lung Cancer Conference, Early Detection of Cancer Conference, and the Molecular and Cellular Characterization of Screen-Detected Lesions Consortium, support for meetings/travel from the American Institute for Medical and Biological Engineering, Cleveland Clinic, Specialized Programs of Research Excellence, and the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer. JHB reports consulting fees from Johnson and Johnson. AS is an employee of Johnson and Johnson. GRW is an equity holder in Quantitative Imaging Solutions. RSJ reports grants from the NIH, a patent pending in lung cancer risk assessment, and is an equity holder of Quantitative Imaging Solutions. The authors have no other conflicts of interest to declare.

2021 Journal of Thoracic Disease. All rights reserved.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Geospatial location of malignant (red) and benign (blue) nodules. Labels on the axes represent distances (in mm) from the carina along each direction, normalized to lung volume. The X location is determined by the lateral position, the Y by the anterior-posterior position, and the Z by the superior-inferior position of the nodule.
Figure 2
Figure 2
The risk of malignancy in an indeterminate nodule based on superior-inferior location in the lung. The heat map demonstrates that some slices (5 mm thickness) carry risks for lung cancer as high as 30%.

References

    1. National Lung Screening Trial Research Team , Aberle DR, Adams AM, et al. Reduced lung-cancer mortality with low-dose computed tomographic screening. N Engl J Med 2011;365:395-409. 10.1056/NEJMoa1102873
    1. Kazerooni EA, Armstrong MR, Amorosa JK, et al. ACR CT accreditation program and the lung cancer screening program designation. J Am Coll Radiol 2015;12:38 42. 10.1016/j.jacr.2014.10.002
    1. Pinsky PF, Gierada DS, Black W, et al. Performance of Lung-RADS in the National Lung Screening Trial: a retrospective assessment. Ann Intern Med 2015;162:485 491. 10.7326/M14-2086
    1. Gould MK, Donington J, Lynch WR, et al. Evaluation of individuals with pulmonary nodules: when is it lung cancer? Diagnosis and management of lung cancer, 3rd ed: American College of Chest Physicians evidence-based clinical practice guidelines. Chest 2013;143:e93S-e120S.
    1. Swensen SJ, Silverstein MD, Ilstrup DM, et al. The probability of malignancy in solitary pulmonary nodules. Application to small radiologically indeterminate nodules. Arch Intern Med 1997;157:849 855. 10.1001/archinte.1997.00440290031002
    1. Gould MK, Ananth L, Barnett PG, et al. A clinical model to estimate the pretest probability of lung cancer in patients with solitary pulmonary nodules. Chest 2007;131:383-8. 10.1378/chest.06-1261
    1. McWilliams A, Tammemagi MC, Mayo JR, et al. Probability of Cancer in Pulmonary Nodules Detected on First Screening CT. N Engl J Med 2013;369:910-9. 10.1056/NEJMoa1214726
    1. Deppen SA, Blume JD, Aldrich MC, et al. Predicting lung cancer prior to surgical resection in patients with lung nodules. J Thorac Oncol 2014;9:1477-84. 10.1097/JTO.0000000000000287
    1. Li Y, Wang J. A mathematical model for predicting malignancy of solitary pulmonary nodules. World J Surg 2012;36:830-5. 10.1007/s00268-012-1449-8
    1. Hammer MM, Nachiappan AC, Barbosa EJM, Jr. Limited Utility of Pulmonary Nodule Risk Calculators for Managing Large Nodules. Curr Probl Diagn Radiol 2018;47:23-7. 10.1067/j.cpradiol.2017.04.003
    1. Horeweg N, Aalst CM, van der, Thunnissen E, et al. Characteristics of lung cancers detected by computer tomography screening in the randomized NELSON trial. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2013;187:848-54. 10.1164/rccm.201209-1651OC
    1. Kinsey CM, Estepar RSJ, Zhao Y, et al. Invasive adenocarcinoma of the lung is associated with the upper lung regions. Lung Cancer 2014;84:145-50. 10.1016/j.lungcan.2014.02.002
    1. Swensen SJ, Silverstein MD, Edell ES, et al. Solitary pulmonary nodules: clinical prediction model versus physicians. Mayo Clin Proc 1999;74:319-29. 10.4065/74.4.319
    1. Washko GR, Hunninghake GM, Fernandez IE, et al. Lung volumes and emphysema in smokers with interstitial lung abnormalities. N Engl J Med 2011;364:897-906. 10.1056/NEJMoa1007285
    1. Castaldi PJ, Estépar RSJ, Mendoza CS, et al. Distinct quantitative computed tomography emphysema patterns are associated with physiology and function in smokers. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2013;188:1083-90. 10.1164/rccm.201305-0873OC
    1. Aerts HJWL, Velazquez ER, Leijenaar RTH, et al. Decoding tumour phenotype by noninvasive imaging using a quantitative radiomics approach. Nat Commun 2014;5:4006. 10.1038/ncomms5006
    1. Aberle DR, DeMello S, Berg CD, et al. Results of the Two Incidence Screenings in the National Lung Screening Trial. N Engl J Med 2013;369:920-31. 10.1056/NEJMoa1208962
    1. Billatos E, Duan F, Moses E, et al. Detection of early lung cancer among military personnel (DECAMP) consortium: study protocols. BMC Pulm Med 2019;19:59. 10.1186/s12890-019-0825-7
    1. Lee HY, Choi YL, Lee KS, et al. Pure Ground-Glass Opacity Neoplastic Lung Nodules: Histopathology, Imaging, and Management. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2014;202:W224-33. 10.2214/AJR.13.11819
    1. Yip R, Yankelevitz DF, Hu M, et al. Lung Cancer Deaths in the National Lung Screening Trial Attributed to Nonsolid Nodules. Radiology 2016;281:589-96. 10.1148/radiol.2016152333
    1. Yip SSF, Parmar C, Blezek D, et al. Application of the 3D slicer chest imaging platform segmentation algorithm for large lung nodule delineation. Ooijen PMA van, editor. PLoS One 2017;12:e0178944.
    1. Velazquez ER, Parmar C, Jermoumi M, et al. Volumetric CT-based segmentation of NSCLC using 3D-Slicer. Sci Rep 2013;3:3529. 10.1038/srep03529
    1. Leening MJG, Vedder MM, Witteman JCM, et al. Net reclassification improvement: computation, interpretation, and controversies: a literature review and clinician’s guide. Ann Intern Med 2014;160:122-31. 10.7326/M13-1522
    1. Cancienne JM, Werner BC, Browne JA. Is There a Threshold Value of Hemoglobin A1c That Predicts Risk of Infection Following Primary Total Hip Arthroplasty? J Arthroplasty 2017;32:S236-240. 10.1016/j.arth.2017.01.022
    1. Caraguel CGB, Vanderstichel R. The two-step Fagan’s nomogram: ad hoc interpretation of a diagnostic test result without calculation. Evid Based Med 2013;18:125-8. 10.1136/eb-2013-101243
    1. Nair VS, Sundaram V, Desai M, et al. Accuracy of Models to Identify Lung Nodule Cancer Risk in the National Lung Screening Trial. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2018;197:1220-3. 10.1164/rccm.201708-1632LE
    1. Folch EE, Bowling MR, Gildea TR, et al. Design of a prospective, multicenter, global, cohort study of electromagnetic navigation bronchoscopy. BMC Pulm Med 2016;16:60. 10.1186/s12890-016-0228-y
    1. Mazzone PJ, Sears CR, Arenberg DA, et al. Evaluating Molecular Biomarkers for the Early Detection of Lung Cancer: When Is a Biomarker Ready for Clinical Use? An Official American Thoracic Society Policy Statement. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2017;196:e15-29. 10.1164/rccm.201708-1678ST
    1. Horeweg N, van der Aalst C, Thunnissen E, et al. Characteristics of Lung Cancers Detected by Computer Tomography Screening in the Randomized NELSON Trial. Am J Resp Crit Care Med 2013;187:848-54. 10.1164/rccm.201209-1651OC
    1. Cheung LC, Katki HA, Chaturvedi AK, et al. Preventing Lung Cancer Mortality by Computed Tomography Screening: The Effect of Risk-Based Versus U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Eligibility Criteria, 2005-2015. Ann Intern Med 2018;168:229-32. 10.7326/M17-2067

Source: PubMed

3
Subskrybuj