A massive galaxy that formed its stars at z ≈ 11.

The formation of galaxies by gradual hierarchical co-assembly of baryons and cold dark matter halos is a fundamental paradigm underpinning modern astrophysics1,2 and predicts a strong decline in the number of massive galaxies at early cosmic times3-5. Extremely massive quiescent galaxies (stellar masses of more than 1011 M⊙) have now been observed as early as 1-2 billion years after the Big Bang6-13. These galaxies are extremely constraining on theoretical models, as they had formed 300-500 Myr earlier, and only some models can form massive galaxies this early12,14. Here we report on the spectroscopic observations with the JWST of a massive quiescent galaxy ZF-UDS-7329 at redshift 3.205 ± 0.005. It has eluded deep ground-based spectroscopy8, it is significantly redder than is typical and its spectrum reveals features typical of much older stellar populations. Detailed modelling shows that its stellar population formed around 1.5 billion years earlier in time (z ≈ 11) at an epoch when dark matter halos of sufficient hosting mass had not yet assembled in the standard scenario4,5. This observation may indicate the presence of undetected populations of early galaxies and the possibility of significant gaps in our understanding of early stellar populations, galaxy formation and the nature of dark matter.

Enhancing a deep learning model for pulmonary nodule malignancy risk estimation in chest CT with uncertainty estimation.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the effect of uncertainty estimation on the performance of a Deep Learning (DL) algorithm for estimating malignancy risk of pulmonary nodules. METHODS AND MATERIALS: In this retrospective study, we integrated an uncertainty estimation method into a previously developed DL algorithm for nodule malignancy risk estimation. Uncertainty thresholds were developed using CT data from the Danish Lung Cancer Screening Trial (DLCST), containing 883 nodules (65 malignant) collected between 2004 and 2010. We used thresholds on the 90th and 95th percentiles of the uncertainty score distribution to categorize nodules into certain and uncertain groups. External validation was performed on clinical CT data from a tertiary academic center containing 374 nodules (207 malignant) collected between 2004 and 2012. DL performance was measured using area under the ROC curve (AUC) for the full set of nodules, for the certain cases and for the uncertain cases. Additionally, nodule characteristics were compared to identify trends for inducing uncertainty. RESULTS: The DL algorithm performed significantly worse in the uncertain group compared to the certain group of DLCST (AUC 0.62 (95% CI: 0.49, 0.76) vs 0.93 (95% CI: 0.88, 0.97); p < .001) and the clinical dataset (AUC 0.62 (95% CI: 0.50, 0.73) vs 0.90 (95% CI: 0.86, 0.94); p < .001). The uncertain group included larger benign nodules as well as more part-solid and non-solid nodules than the certain group. CONCLUSION: The integrated uncertainty estimation showed excellent performance for identifying uncertain cases in which the DL-based nodule malignancy risk estimation algorithm had significantly worse performance. CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: Deep Learning algorithms often lack the ability to gauge and communicate uncertainty. For safe clinical implementation, uncertainty estimation is of pivotal importance to identify cases where the deep learning algorithm harbors doubt in its prediction. KEY POINTS: • Deep learning (DL) algorithms often lack uncertainty estimation, which potentially reduce the risk of errors and improve safety during clinical adoption of the DL algorithm. • Uncertainty estimation identifies pulmonary nodules in which the discriminative performance of the DL algorithm is significantly worse. • Uncertainty estimation can further enhance the benefits of the DL algorithm and improve its safety and trustworthiness.

Prediction Variability to Identify Reduced AI Performance in Cancer Diagnosis at MRI and CT.

Background A priori identification of patients at risk of artificial intelligence (AI) failure in diagnosing cancer would contribute to the safer clinical integration of diagnostic algorithms. Purpose To evaluate AI prediction variability as an uncertainty quantification (UQ) metric for identifying cases at risk of AI failure in diagnosing cancer at MRI and CT across different cancer types, data sets, and algorithms. Materials and Methods Multicenter data sets and publicly available AI algorithms from three previous studies that evaluated detection of pancreatic cancer on contrast-enhanced CT images, detection of prostate cancer on MRI scans, and prediction of pulmonary nodule malignancy on low-dose CT images were analyzed retrospectively. Each task's algorithm was extended to generate an uncertainty score based on ensemble prediction variability. AI accuracy percentage and partial area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (pAUC) were compared between certain and uncertain patient groups in a range of percentile thresholds (10%-90%) for the uncertainty score using permutation tests for statistical significance. The pulmonary nodule malignancy prediction algorithm was compared with 11 clinical readers for the certain group (CG) and uncertain group (UG). Results In total, 18 022 images were used for training and 838 images were used for testing. AI diagnostic accuracy was higher for the cases in the CG across all tasks (P < .001). At an 80% threshold of certain predictions, accuracy in the CG was 21%-29% higher than in the UG and 4%-6% higher than in the overall test data sets. The lesion-level pAUC in the CG was 0.25-0.39 higher than in the UG and 0.05-0.08 higher than in the overall test data sets (P < .001). For pulmonary nodule malignancy prediction, accuracy of AI was on par with clinicians for cases in the CG (AI results vs clinician results, 80% [95% CI: 76, 85] vs 78% [95% CI: 70, 87]; P = .07) but worse for cases in the UG (AI results vs clinician results, 50% [95% CI: 37, 64] vs 68% [95% CI: 60, 76]; P < .001). Conclusion An AI-prediction UQ metric consistently identified reduced performance of AI in cancer diagnosis. © RSNA, 2023 Supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Babyn in this issue.

Prior CT Improves Deep Learning for Malignancy Risk Estimation of Screening-detected Pulmonary Nodules.

Background Prior chest CT provides valuable temporal information (eg, changes in nodule size or appearance) to accurately estimate malignancy risk. Purpose To develop a deep learning (DL) algorithm that uses a current and prior low-dose CT examination to estimate 3-year malignancy risk of pulmonary nodules. Materials and Methods In this retrospective study, the algorithm was trained using National Lung Screening Trial data (collected from 2002 to 2004), wherein patients were imaged at most 2 years apart, and evaluated with two external test sets from the Danish Lung Cancer Screening Trial (DLCST) and the Multicentric Italian Lung Detection Trial (MILD), collected in 2004-2010 and 2005-2014, respectively. Performance was evaluated using area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) on cancer-enriched subsets with size-matched benign nodules imaged 1 and 2 years apart from DLCST and MILD, respectively. The algorithm was compared with a validated DL algorithm that only processed a single CT examination and the Pan-Canadian Early Lung Cancer Detection Study (PanCan) model. Results The training set included 10 508 nodules (422 malignant) in 4902 trial participants (mean age, 64 years ± 5 [SD]; 2778 men). The size-matched external test sets included 129 nodules (43 malignant) and 126 nodules (42 malignant). The algorithm achieved AUCs of 0.91 (95% CI: 0.85, 0.97) and 0.94 (95% CI: 0.89, 0.98). It significantly outperformed the DL algorithm that only processed a single CT examination (AUC, 0.85 [95% CI: 0.78, 0.92; P = .002]; and AUC, 0.89 [95% CI: 0.84, 0.95; P = .01]) and the PanCan model (AUC, 0.64 [95% CI: 0.53, 0.74; P < .001]; and AUC, 0.63 [95% CI: 0.52, 0.74; P < .001]). Conclusion A DL algorithm using current and prior low-dose CT examinations was more effective at estimating 3-year malignancy risk of pulmonary nodules than established models that only use a single CT examination. Clinical trial registration nos. NCT00047385, NCT00496977, NCT02837809 © RSNA, 2023 Supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Horst and Nishino in this issue.

Trends in the incidence of pulmonary nodules in chest computed tomography: 10-year results from two Dutch hospitals.

OBJECTIVE: To study trends in the incidence of reported pulmonary nodules and stage I lung cancer in chest CT. METHODS: We analyzed the trends in the incidence of detected pulmonary nodules and stage I lung cancer in chest CT scans in the period between 2008 and 2019. Imaging metadata and radiology reports from all chest CT studies were collected from two large Dutch hospitals. A natural language processing algorithm was developed to identify studies with any reported pulmonary nodule. RESULTS: Between 2008 and 2019, a total of 74,803 patients underwent 166,688 chest CT examinations at both hospitals combined. During this period, the annual number of chest CT scans increased from 9955 scans in 6845 patients in 2008 to 20,476 scans in 13,286 patients in 2019. The proportion of patients in whom nodules (old or new) were reported increased from 38% (2595/6845) in 2008 to 50% (6654/13,286) in 2019. The proportion of patients in whom significant new nodules (≥ 5 mm) were reported increased from 9% (608/6954) in 2010 to 17% (1660/9883) in 2017. The number of patients with new nodules and corresponding stage I lung cancer diagnosis tripled and their proportion doubled, from 0.4% (26/6954) in 2010 to 0.8% (78/9883) in 2017. CONCLUSION: The identification of incidental pulmonary nodules in chest CT has steadily increased over the past decade and has been accompanied by more stage I lung cancer diagnoses. CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: These findings stress the importance of identifying and efficiently managing incidental pulmonary nodules in routine clinical practice. KEY POINTS: • The number of patients who underwent chest CT examinations substantially increased over the past decade, as did the number of patients in whom pulmonary nodules were identified. • The increased use of chest CT and more frequently identified pulmonary nodules were associated with more stage I lung cancer diagnoses.

Multi-source data approach for personalized outcome prediction in lung cancer screening: update from the NELSON trial.

Trials show that low-dose computed tomography (CT) lung cancer screening in long-term (ex-)smokers reduces lung cancer mortality. However, many individuals were exposed to unnecessary diagnostic procedures. This project aims to improve the efficiency of lung cancer screening by identifying high-risk participants, and improving risk discrimination for nodules. This study is an extension of the Dutch-Belgian Randomized Lung Cancer Screening Trial, with a focus on personalized outcome prediction (NELSON-POP). New data will be added on genetics, air pollution, malignancy risk for lung nodules, and CT biomarkers beyond lung nodules (emphysema, coronary calcification, bone density, vertebral height and body composition). The roles of polygenic risk scores and air pollution in screen-detected lung cancer diagnosis and survival will be established. The association between the AI-based nodule malignancy score and lung cancer will be evaluated at baseline and incident screening rounds. The association of chest CT imaging biomarkers with outcomes will be established. Based on these results, multisource prediction models for pre-screening and post-baseline-screening participant selection and nodule management will be developed. The new models will be externally validated. We hypothesize that we can identify 15-20% participants with low-risk of lung cancer or short life expectancy and thus prevent ~140,000 Dutch individuals from being screened unnecessarily. We hypothesize that our models will improve the specificity of nodule management by 10% without loss of sensitivity as compared to assessment of nodule size/growth alone, and reduce unnecessary work-up by 40-50%.

Scan-based competing death risk model for re-evaluating lung cancer computed tomography screening eligibility.

BACKGROUND: A baseline computed tomography (CT) scan for lung cancer (LC) screening may reveal information indicating that certain LC screening participants can be screened less, and instead require dedicated early cardiac and respiratory clinical input. We aimed to develop and validate competing death (CD) risk models using CT information to identify participants with a low LC risk and a high CD risk. METHODS: Participant demographics and quantitative CT measures of LC, cardiovascular disease and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease were considered for deriving a logistic regression model for predicting 5-year CD risk using a sample from the National Lung Screening Trial (n=15 000). Multicentric Italian Lung Detection data were used to perform external validation (n=2287). RESULTS: Our final CD model outperformed an external pre-scan model (CD Risk Assessment Tool) in both the derivation (area under the curve (AUC) 0.744 (95% CI 0.727-0.761) and 0.677 (95% CI 0.658-0.695), respectively) and validation cohorts (AUC 0.744 (95% CI 0.652-0.835) and 0.725 (95% CI 0.633-0.816), respectively). By also taking LC incidence risk into consideration, we suggested a risk threshold where a subgroup (6258/23 096 (27%)) was identified with a number needed to screen to detect one LC of 216 (versus 23 in the remainder of the cohort) and ratio of 5.41 CDs per LC case (versus 0.88). The respective values in the validation cohort subgroup (774/2287 (34%)) were 129 (versus 29) and 1.67 (versus 0.43). CONCLUSIONS: Evaluating both LC and CD risks post-scan may improve the efficiency of LC screening and facilitate the initiation of multidisciplinary trajectories among certain participants.

Innovations in thoracic imaging: CT, radiomics, AI and x-ray velocimetry.

In recent years, pulmonary imaging has seen enormous progress, with the introduction, validation and implementation of new hardware and software. There is a general trend from mere visual evaluation of radiological images to quantification of abnormalities and biomarkers, and assessment of 'non visual' markers that contribute to establishing diagnosis or prognosis. Important catalysts to these developments in thoracic imaging include new indications (like computed tomography [CT] lung cancer screening) and the COVID-19 pandemic. This review focuses on developments in CT, radiomics, artificial intelligence (AI) and x-ray velocimetry for imaging of the lungs. Recent developments in CT include the potential for ultra-low-dose CT imaging for lung nodules, and the advent of a new generation of CT systems based on photon-counting detector technology. Radiomics has demonstrated potential towards predictive and prognostic tasks particularly in lung cancer, previously not achievable by visual inspection by radiologists, exploiting high dimensional patterns (mostly texture related) on medical imaging data. Deep learning technology has revolutionized the field of AI and as a result, performance of AI algorithms is approaching human performance for an increasing number of specific tasks. X-ray velocimetry integrates x-ray (fluoroscopic) imaging with unique image processing to produce quantitative four dimensional measurement of lung tissue motion, and accurate calculations of lung ventilation.

Deep Learning for Malignancy Risk Estimation of Pulmonary Nodules Detected at Low-Dose Screening CT.

Background Accurate estimation of the malignancy risk of pulmonary nodules at chest CT is crucial for optimizing management in lung cancer screening. Purpose To develop and validate a deep learning (DL) algorithm for malignancy risk estimation of pulmonary nodules detected at screening CT. Materials and Methods In this retrospective study, the DL algorithm was developed with 16 077 nodules (1249 malignant) collected -between 2002 and 2004 from the National Lung Screening Trial. External validation was performed in the following three -cohorts -collected between 2004 and 2010 from the Danish Lung Cancer Screening Trial: a full cohort containing all 883 nodules (65 -malignant) and two cancer-enriched cohorts with size matching (175 nodules, 59 malignant) and without size matching (177 -nodules, 59 malignant) of benign nodules selected at random. Algorithm performance was measured by using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) and compared with that of the Pan-Canadian Early Detection of Lung Cancer (PanCan) model in the full cohort and a group of 11 clinicians composed of four thoracic radiologists, five radiology residents, and two pulmonologists in the cancer-enriched cohorts. Results The DL algorithm significantly outperformed the PanCan model in the full cohort (AUC, 0.93 [95% CI: 0.89, 0.96] vs 0.90 [95% CI: 0.86, 0.93]; P = .046). The algorithm performed comparably to thoracic radiologists in cancer-enriched cohorts with both random benign nodules (AUC, 0.96 [95% CI: 0.93, 0.99] vs 0.90 [95% CI: 0.81, 0.98]; P = .11) and size-matched benign nodules (AUC, 0.86 [95% CI: 0.80, 0.91] vs 0.82 [95% CI: 0.74, 0.89]; P = .26). Conclusion The deep learning algorithm showed excellent performance, comparable to thoracic radiologists, for malignancy risk estimation of pulmonary nodules detected at screening CT. This algorithm has the potential to provide reliable and reproducible malignancy risk scores for clinicians, which may help optimize management in lung cancer screening. © RSNA, 2021 Online supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Tammemägi in this issue.

Automated Assessment of COVID-19 Reporting and Data System and Chest CT Severity Scores in Patients Suspected of Having COVID-19 Using Artificial Intelligence.

Background The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has spread across the globe with alarming speed, morbidity, and mortality. Immediate triage of patients with chest infections suspected to be caused by COVID-19 using chest CT may be of assistance when results from definitive viral testing are delayed. Purpose To develop and validate an artificial intelligence (AI) system to score the likelihood and extent of pulmonary COVID-19 on chest CT scans using the COVID-19 Reporting and Data System (CO-RADS) and CT severity scoring systems. Materials and Methods The CO-RADS AI system consists of three deep-learning algorithms that automatically segment the five pulmonary lobes, assign a CO-RADS score for the suspicion of COVID-19, and assign a CT severity score for the degree of parenchymal involvement per lobe. This study retrospectively included patients who underwent a nonenhanced chest CT examination because of clinical suspicion of COVID-19 at two medical centers. The system was trained, validated, and tested with data from one of the centers. Data from the second center served as an external test set. Diagnostic performance and agreement with scores assigned by eight independent observers were measured using receiver operating characteristic analysis, linearly weighted κ values, and classification accuracy. Results A total of 105 patients (mean age, 62 years ± 16 [standard deviation]; 61 men) and 262 patients (mean age, 64 years ± 16; 154 men) were evaluated in the internal and external test sets, respectively. The system discriminated between patients with COVID-19 and those without COVID-19, with areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.95 (95% CI: 0.91, 0.98) and 0.88 (95% CI: 0.84, 0.93), for the internal and external test sets, respectively. Agreement with the eight human observers was moderate to substantial, with mean linearly weighted κ values of 0.60 ± 0.01 for CO-RADS scores and 0.54 ± 0.01 for CT severity scores. Conclusion With high diagnostic performance, the CO-RADS AI system correctly identified patients with COVID-19 using chest CT scans and assigned standardized CO-RADS and CT severity scores that demonstrated good agreement with findings from eight independent observers and generalized well to external data. © RSNA, 2020 Supplemental material is available for this article.

Combining pulmonary and cardiac computed tomography biomarkers for disease-specific risk modelling in lung cancer screening.

OBJECTIVES: Combined assessment of cardiovascular disease (CVD), COPD and lung cancer may improve the effectiveness of lung cancer screening in smokers. The aims were to derive and assess risk models for predicting lung cancer incidence, CVD mortality and COPD mortality by combining quantitative computed tomography (CT) measures from each disease, and to quantify the added predictive benefit of self-reported patient characteristics given the availability of a CT scan. METHODS: A survey model (patient characteristics only), CT model (CT information only) and final model (all variables) were derived for each outcome using parsimonious Cox regression on a sample from the National Lung Screening Trial (n=15 000). Validation was performed using Multicentric Italian Lung Detection data (n=2287). Time-dependent measures of model discrimination and calibration are reported. RESULTS: Age, mean lung density, emphysema score, bronchial wall thickness and aorta calcium volume are variables that contributed to all final models. Nodule features were crucial for lung cancer incidence predictions but did not contribute to CVD and COPD mortality prediction. In the derivation cohort, the lung cancer incidence CT model had a 5-year area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 82.5% (95% CI 80.9-84.0%), significantly inferior to that of the final model (84.0%, 82.6-85.5%). However, the addition of patient characteristics did not improve the lung cancer incidence model performance in the validation cohort (CT model 80.1%, 74.2-86.0%; final model 79.9%, 73.9-85.8%). Similarly, the final CVD mortality model outperformed the other two models in the derivation cohort (survey model 74.9%, 72.7-77.1%; CT model 76.3%, 74.1-78.5%; final model 79.1%, 77.0-81.2%), but not the validation cohort (survey model 74.8%, 62.2-87.5%; CT model 72.1%, 61.1-83.2%; final model 72.2%, 60.4-84.0%). Combining patient characteristics and CT measures provided the largest increase in accuracy for the COPD mortality final model (92.3%, 90.1-94.5%) compared to either other model individually (survey model 87.5%, 84.3-90.6%; CT model 87.9%, 84.8-91.0%), but no external validation was performed due to a very low event frequency. CONCLUSIONS: CT measures of CVD and COPD provides small but reproducible improvements to nodule-based lung cancer risk prediction accuracy from 3 years onwards. Self-reported patient characteristics may not be of added predictive value when CT information is available.

Lung cancer screening by nodule volume in Lung-RADS v1.1: negative baseline CT yields potential for increased screening interval.

OBJECTIVES: The 2019 Lung CT Screening Reporting & Data System version 1.1 (Lung-RADS v1.1) introduced volumetric categories for nodule management. The aims of this study were to report the distribution of Lung-RADS v1.1 volumetric categories and to analyse lung cancer (LC) outcomes within 3 years for exploring personalized algorithm for lung cancer screening (LCS). METHODS: Subjects from the Multicentric Italian Lung Detection (MILD) trial were retrospectively selected by National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) criteria. Baseline characteristics included selected pre-test metrics and nodule characterization according to the volume-based categories of Lung-RADS v1.1. Nodule volume was obtained by segmentation with dedicated semi-automatic software. Primary outcome was diagnosis of LC, tested by univariate and multivariable models. Secondary outcome was stage of LC. Increased interval algorithms were simulated for testing rate of delayed diagnosis (RDD) and reduction of low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) burden. RESULTS: In 1248 NLST-eligible subjects, LC frequency was 1.2% at 1 year, 1.8% at 2 years and 2.6% at 3 years. Nodule volume in Lung-RADS v1.1 was a strong predictor of LC: positive LDCT showed an odds ratio (OR) of 75.60 at 1 year (p < 0.0001), and indeterminate LDCT showed an OR of 9.16 at 2 years (p = 0.0068) and an OR of 6.35 at 3 years (p = 0.0042). In the first 2 years after negative LDCT, 100% of resected LC was stage I. The simulations of low-frequency screening showed a RDD of 13.6-21.9% and a potential reduction of LDCT burden of 25.5-41%. CONCLUSIONS: Nodule volume by semi-automatic software allowed stratification of LC risk across Lung-RADS v1.1 categories. Personalized screening algorithm by increased interval seems feasible in 80% of NLST eligible. KEY POINTS: • Using semi-automatic segmentation of nodule volume, Lung-RADS v1.1 selected 10.8% of subjects with positive CT and 96.87 relative risk of lung cancer at 1 year, compared to negative CT. • Negative low-dose CT by Lung-RADS v1.1 was found in 80.6% of NLST eligible and yielded 40 times lower relative risk of lung cancer at 2 years, compared to positive low-dose CT; annual screening could be preference sensitive in this group. • Semi-automatic segmentation of nodule volume and increased screening interval by volumetric Lung-RADS v1.1 could retrospectively suggest a 25.5-41% reduction of LDCT burden, at the cost of 13.6-21.9% rate of delayed diagnosis.

Observer variability for Lung-RADS categorisation of lung cancer screening CTs: impact on patient management.

OBJECTIVES: Lung-RADS represents a categorical system published by the American College of Radiology to standardise management in lung cancer screening. The purpose of the study was to quantify how well readers agree in assigning Lung-RADS categories to screening CTs; secondary goals were to assess causes of disagreement and evaluate its impact on patient management. METHODS: For the observer study, 80 baseline and 80 follow-up scans were randomly selected from the NLST trial covering all Lung-RADS categories in an equal distribution. Agreement of seven observers was analysed using Cohen's kappa statistics. Discrepancies were correlated with patient management, test performance and diagnosis of malignancy within the scan year. RESULTS: Pairwise interobserver agreement was substantial (mean kappa 0.67, 95% CI 0.58-0.77). Lung-RADS category disagreement was seen in approximately one-third (29%, 971) of 3360 reading pairs, resulting in different patient management in 8% (278/3360). Out of the 91 reading pairs that referred to scans with a tumour diagnosis within 1 year, discrepancies in only two would have resulted in a substantial management change. CONCLUSIONS: Assignment of lung cancer screening CT scans to Lung-RADS categories achieves substantial interobserver agreement. Impact of disagreement on categorisation of malignant nodules was low. KEY POINTS: • Lung-RADS categorisation of low-dose lung screening CTs achieved substantial interobserver agreement. • Major cause for disagreement was assigning a different nodule as risk-dominant. • Disagreement led to a different follow-up time in 8% of reading pairs.

Lung cancer risk to personalise annual and biennial follow-up computed tomography screening.

BACKGROUND: All lung cancer CT screening trials used fixed follow-up intervals, which may not be optimal. We developed new lung cancer risk models for personalising screening intervals to 1 year or 2 years, and compared these with existing models. METHODS: We included participants in the CT arm of the National Lung Screening Trial (2002-2010) who underwent a baseline scan and a first annual follow-up scan and were not diagnosed with lung cancer in the first year. True and false positives and the area under the curve of each model were calculated. Internal validation was performed using bootstrapping. RESULTS: Data from 24 542 participants were included in the analysis. The accuracy was 0.785, 0.693, 0.697, 0.666 and 0.727 for the polynomial, patient characteristics, diameter, Patz and PanCan models, respectively. Of the 24 542 participants included, 174 (0.71%) were diagnosed with lung cancer between the first and the second annual follow-ups. Using the polynomial model, 2558 (10.4%, 95% CI 10.0% to 10.8%), 7544 (30.7%, 30.2% to 31.3%), 10 947 (44.6%, 44.0% to 45.2%), 16 710 (68.1%, 67.5% to 68.7%) and 20 023 (81.6%, 81.1% to 92.1%) of the 24 368 participants who did not develop lung cancer in the year following the first follow-up screening round could have safely skipped it, at the expense of delayed diagnosis of 0 (0.0%, 0.0% to 2.7%), 8 (4.6%, 2.2% to 9.2%), 17 (9.8%, 6.0% to 15.4%), 44 (25.3%, 19.2% to 32.5%) and 70 (40.2%, 33.0% to 47.9%) of the 174 lung cancers, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The polynomial model, using both patient characteristics and baseline scan morphology, was significantly superior in assigning participants to 1-year or 2-year screening intervals. Implementing personalised follow-up intervals would enable hundreds of participants to skip a screening round per lung cancer diagnosis delayed.

Brock malignancy risk calculator for pulmonary nodules: validation outside a lung cancer screening population.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the performance of the Brock malignancy risk model for pulmonary nodules detected in routine clinical setting. METHODS: In two academic centres in the Netherlands, we established a list of patients aged ≥40 years who received a chest CT scan between 2004 and 2012, resulting in 16 850 and 23 454 eligible subjects. Subsequent diagnosis of lung cancer until the end of 2014 was established through linking with the National Cancer Registry. A nested case-control study was performed (ratio 1:3). Two observers used semiautomated software to annotate the nodules. The Brock model was separately validated on each data set using ROC analysis and compared with a solely size-based model. RESULTS: After the annotation process the final analysis included 177 malignant and 695 benign nodules for centre A, and 264 malignant and 710 benign nodules for centre B. The full Brock model resulted in areas under the curve (AUCs) of 0.90 and 0.91, while the size-only model yielded significantly lower AUCs of 0.88 and 0.87, respectively (p<0.001). At 10% malignancy risk, the threshold suggested by the British Thoracic Society, sensitivity of the full model was 75% and 81%, specificity was 85% and 84%, positive predictive values were 14% and 10% at negative predictive value (NPV) of 99%. The optimal threshold was 6% for centre A and 8% for centre B, with NPVs >99%. DISCUSSION: The Brock model shows high predictive discrimination of potentially malignant and benign nodules when validated in an unselected, heterogeneous clinical population. The high NPV may be used to decrease the number of nodule follow-up examinations.

Classification of CT Pulmonary Opacities as Perifissural Nodules: Reader Variability.

Purpose To study interreader variability for classifying pulmonary opacities at CT as perifissural nodules (PFNs) and determine how reliably radiologists differentiate PFNs from malignancies. Materials and Methods CT studies were obtained retrospectively from the National Lung Screening Trial (2002-2009). Nodules were eligible for the study if they were noncalcified, solid, within the size range of 5 to 10 mm, and scanned with a section thickness of 2 mm or less. Six radiologists classified 359 nodules in a cancer-enriched data set as PFN, non-PFN, or not applicable. Nodules classified as not applicable by at least three radiologists were excluded, leaving 316 nodules for post-hoc statistical analysis. Results The study group contained 22.2% cancers (70 of 316). The median proportion of nodules classified as PFNs was 45.6% (144 of 316). All six radiologists uniformly classified 17.7% (56 of 316) of the nodules as PFNs. The Fleiss κ was 0.50. Compared with non-PFNs, nodules classified as PFNs were smaller and more often located in the lower lobes and attached to a fissure (P < .001). Thirteen (18.6%) of 70 cancers were misclassified 21 times as PFNs. Individual readers' misclassification rates ranged from 0% (0 of 125) to 4.9% (eight of 163). Of 13 misclassified malignancies, 11 were in the upper lobes and two were attached to a fissure. Conclusion There was moderate interreader agreement when classifying nodules as perifissural nodules. Less than 2.5% of perifissural nodule classifications were misclassified lung cancers (21 of 865) in this cancer-enriched study. Allowing nodules classified as perifissural nodules to be omitted from additional follow-up in a screening setting could substantially reduce the number of unnecessary scans; excluding perifissural nodules in the upper lobes would greatly decrease the misclassification rate.

Lung-RADS Category 4X: Does It Improve Prediction of Malignancy in Subsolid Nodules?

Purpose To evaluate the added value of Lung CT Screening Reporting and Data System (Lung-RADS) assessment category 4X over categories 3, 4A, and 4B for differentiating between benign and malignant subsolid nodules (SSNs). Materials and Methods SSNs on all baseline computed tomographic (CT) scans from the National Lung Cancer Trial that would have been classified as Lung-RADS category 3 or higher were identified, resulting in 374 SSNs for analysis. An experienced screening radiologist volumetrically segmented all solid cores and located all malignant SSNs visible on baseline scans. Six experienced chest radiologists independently determined which nodules to upgrade to category 4X, a recently introduced category for lesions that demonstrate additional features or imaging findings that increase the suspicion of malignancy. Malignancy rates of purely size-based categories and category 4X were compared. Furthermore, the false-positive rates of category 4X lesions were calculated and observer variability was assessed by using Fleiss κ statistics. Results The observers upgraded 15%-24% of the SSNs to category 4X. The malignancy rate for 4X nodules varied from 46% to 57% per observer and was substantially higher than the malignancy rates of categories 3, 4A, and 4B SSNs without observer intervention (9%, 19%, and 23%, respectively). On average, the false-positive rate for category 4X nodules was 7% for category 3 SSNs, 7% for category 4A SSNs, and 19% for category 4B SSNs. Of the falsely upgraded benign lesions, on average 27% were transient. The agreement among the observers was moderate, with an average κ value of 0.535 (95% confidence interval: 0.509, 0.561). Conclusion The inclusion of a 4X assessment category for lesions suspicious for malignancy in a nodule management tool is of added value and results in high malignancy rates in the hands of experienced radiologists. Proof of the transient character of category 4X lesions at short-term follow-up could avoid unnecessary invasive management. © RSNA, 2017.