Head-to-head Comparison of Qualitative Radiologist Assessment With Automated Quantitative Computed Tomography Analysis for Bronchiolitis Obliterans Syndrome After Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation.

PURPOSE: Computed tomography (CT) findings of bronchiolitis obliterans syndrome (BOS) can be nonspecific and variable. This study aims to measure the incremental value of automated quantitative lung CT analysis to clinical CT interpretation. A head-to-head comparison of quantitative CT lung density analysis by parametric response mapping (PRM) with qualitative radiologist performance in BOS diagnosis was performed. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Inspiratory and end-expiratory CTs of 65 patients referred to a post-bone marrow transplant lung graft-versus-host-disease clinic were reviewed by 3 thoracic radiologists for the presence of mosaic attenuation, centrilobular opacities, airways dilation, and bronchial wall thickening. Radiologists' majority consensus diagnosis of BOS was compared with automated PRM air trapping quantification and to the gold-standard diagnosis of BOS as per National Institutes of Health (NIH) consensus criteria. RESULTS: Using a previously established threshold of 28% air trapping on PRM, the diagnostic performance for BOS was as follows: sensitivity 56% and specificity 94% (area under the receiver operator curve [AUC]=0.75). Radiologist review of inspiratory CT images alone resulted in a sensitivity of 80% and a specificity of 69% (AUC=0.74). When radiologists assessed both inspiratory and end-expiratory CT images in combination, the sensitivity was 92% and the specificity was 59% (AUC=0.75). The highest performance was observed when the quantitative PRM report was reviewed alongside inspiratory and end-expiratory CT images, with a sensitivity of 92% and a specificity of 73% (AUC=0.83). CONCLUSIONS: In the CT diagnosis of BOS, qualitative expert radiologist interpretation was noninferior to quantitative PRM. The highest level of diagnostic performance was achieved by the combination of quantitative PRM measurements with qualitative image feature assessments.

A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Lung Cancer Screening With Low-Dose Computed Tomography and a Diagnostic Biomarker.

Background: The Lung Computed Tomography Screening Reporting and Data System (Lung-RADS) reduces the false-positive rate of lung cancer screening but introduces prolonged periods of uncertainty for indeterminate findings. We assess the cost-effectiveness of a screening program that assesses indeterminate findings earlier via a hypothetical diagnostic biomarker introduced in place of Lung-RADS 3 and 4A guidelines. Methods: We evaluated the performance of the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommendations on lung cancer screening with and without a hypothetical noninvasive diagnostic biomarker using a validated microsimulation model. The diagnostic biomarker assesses the malignancy of indeterminate nodules, replacing Lung-RADS 3 and 4A guidelines, and is characterized by a varying sensitivity profile that depends on nodules' size, specificity, and cost. We tested the robustness of our findings through univariate sensitivity analyses. Results: A lung cancer screening program per the USPSTF guidelines that incorporates a diagnostic biomarker with at least medium sensitivity profile and 90% specificity, that costs $250 or less, is cost-effective with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio lower than $100 000 per quality-adjusted life year, and improves lung cancer-specific mortality reduction while requiring fewer screening exams than the USPSTF guidelines with Lung-RADS. A screening program with a biomarker costing $750 or more is not cost-effective. The health benefits accrued and costs associated with the screening program are sensitive to the disutility of indeterminate findings and specificity of the biomarker, respectively. Conclusions: Lung cancer screening that incorporates a diagnostic biomarker, in place of Lung-RADS 3 and 4A guidelines, could improve the cost-effectiveness of the screening program and warrants further investigation.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Lung Cancer Screening Accounting for the Effect of Indeterminate Findings.

BACKGROUND: Numerous health policy organizations recommend lung cancer screening, but no consensus exists on the optimal policy. Moreover, the impact of the Lung CT screening reporting and data system guidelines to manage small pulmonary nodules of unknown significance (a.k.a. indeterminate nodules) on the cost-effectiveness of lung cancer screening is not well established. METHODS: We assess the cost-effectiveness of 199 screening strategies that vary in terms of age and smoking eligibility criteria, using a microsimulation model. We simulate lung cancer-related events throughout the lifetime of US-representative current and former smokers. We conduct sensitivity analyses to test key model inputs and assumptions. RESULTS: The cost-effectiveness efficiency frontier consists of both annual and biennial screening strategies. Current guidelines are not on the frontier. Assuming 4% disutility associated with indeterminate findings, biennial screening for smokers aged 50-70 years with at least 40 pack-years and less than 10 years since smoking cessation is the cost-effective strategy using $100 000 willingness-to-pay threshold yielding the highest health benefit. Among all health utilities, the cost-effectiveness of screening is most sensitive to changes in the disutility of indeterminate findings. As the disutility of indeterminate findings decreases, screening eligibility criteria become less stringent and eventually annual screening for smokers aged 50-70 years with at least 30 pack-years and less than 10 years since smoking cessation is the cost-effective strategy yielding the highest health benefit. CONCLUSIONS: The disutility associated with indeterminate findings impacts the cost-effectiveness of lung cancer screening. Efforts to quantify and better understand the impact of indeterminate findings on the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of lung cancer screening are warranted.

Lung Cancer Screening, Version 3.2018, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology.

Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer-related mortality in the United States and worldwide. Early detection of lung cancer is an important opportunity for decreasing mortality. Data support using low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) of the chest to screen select patients who are at high risk for lung cancer. Lung screening is covered under the Affordable Care Act for individuals with high-risk factors. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) covers annual screening LDCT for appropriate Medicare beneficiaries at high risk for lung cancer if they also receive counseling and participate in shared decision-making before screening. The complete version of the NCCN Guidelines for Lung Cancer Screening provides recommendations for initial and subsequent LDCT screening and provides more detail about LDCT screening. This manuscript focuses on identifying patients at high risk for lung cancer who are candidates for LDCT of the chest and on evaluating initial screening findings.