Deep Learning-based Fibrosis Extent on Computed Tomography Predicts Outcome of Fibrosing Interstitial Lung Disease Independent of Visually Assessed Computed Tomography Pattern.

Rationale: Radiologic pattern has been shown to predict survival in patients with fibrosing interstitial lung disease. The additional prognostic value of fibrosis extent by quantitative computed tomography (CT) is unknown. Objectives: We hypothesized that fibrosis extent provides information beyond visually assessed CT pattern that is useful for outcome prediction. Methods: We performed a retrospective analysis of chest CT, demographics, longitudinal pulmonary function, and transplantation-free survival among participants in the Pulmonary Fibrosis Foundation Patient Registry. CT pattern was classified visually according to the 2018 usual interstitial pneumonia criteria. Extent of fibrosis was objectively quantified using data-driven textural analysis. We used Kaplan-Meier plots and Cox proportional hazards and linear mixed-effects models to evaluate the relationships between CT-derived metrics and outcomes. Results: Visual assessment and quantitative analysis were performed on 979 enrollment CT scans. Linear mixed-effect modeling showed that greater baseline fibrosis extent was significantly associated with the annual rate of decline in forced vital capacity. In multivariable models that included CT pattern and fibrosis extent, quantitative fibrosis extent was strongly associated with transplantation-free survival independent of CT pattern (hazard ratio, 1.04; 95% confidence interval, 1.04-1.05; P < 0.001; C statistic = 0.73). Conclusions: The extent of lung fibrosis by quantitative CT is a strong predictor of physiologic progression and survival, independent of visually assessed CT pattern.

Emotional Distress, Anxiety, and General Health Status in Patients With Newly Identified Small Pulmonary Nodules: Results From the Watch the Spot Trial.

BACKGROUND: Anxiety and emotional distress have not been studied in large, diverse samples of patients with pulmonary nodules. RESEARCH QUESTION: How common are anxiety and distress in patients with newly identified pulmonary nodules, and what factors are associated with these outcomes? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: This study surveyed participants in the Watch the Spot Trial, a large, pragmatic clinical trial of more vs less intensive strategies for radiographic surveillance of patients with small pulmonary nodules. The survey included validated instruments to measure patient-centered outcomes such as nodule-related emotional distress (Impact of Event Scale-Revised) and anxiety (Six-Item State Anxiety Inventory) 6 to 8 weeks following nodule identification. Mixed-effects models were used to compare outcomes between study arms following adjustment for potential confounders and clustering within enrollment site, while also examining a limited number of prespecified explanatory factors, including nodule size, mode of detection, type of ordering clinician, and lack of timely notification prior to contact by the study team. RESULTS: The trial enrolled 34,699 patients; 2,049 individuals completed the baseline survey (5.9%). Respondents and nonrespondents had similar demographic and nodule characteristics, although more respondents were non-Hispanic and White. Impact of Event Scale-Revised scores indicated mild, moderate, or severe distress in 32.2%, 9.4%, and 7.2% of respondents, respectively, with no difference in scores between study arms. Following adjustment, greater emotional distress was associated with larger nodule size and lack of timely notification by a clinician; distress was also associated with younger age, female sex, ever smoking, Black race, and Hispanic ethnicity. Anxiety was associated with lack of timely notification, ever smoking, and female sex. INTERPRETATION: Almost one-half of respondents experienced emotional distress 6 to 8 weeks following pulmonary nodule identification. Strategies are needed to mitigate the burden of distress, especially in younger, female, ever smoking, and minoritized patients, and those with larger nodules. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov; No.: NCT02623712; URL: www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov.

A Quick Reference Guide for Incidental Findings on Lung Cancer Screening CT Examinations.

PURPOSE: The US Preventive Services Task Force has recommended lung cancer screening (LCS) with low-dose CT (LDCT) in high-risk individuals since 2013. Because LDCT encompasses the lower neck, chest, and upper abdomen, many incidental findings (IFs) are detected. The authors created a quick reference guide to describe common IFs in LCS to assist LCS program navigators and ordering providers in managing the care continuum in LCS. METHODS: The ACR IF white papers were reviewed for findings on LDCT that were age appropriate for LCS. A draft guide was created on the basis of recommendations in the IF white papers, the medical literature, and input from subspecialty content experts. The draft was piloted with LCS program navigators recruited through contacts by the ACR LCS Steering Committee. The navigators completed a survey on overall usefulness, clarity, adequacy of content, and user experience with the guide. RESULTS: Seven anatomic regions including 15 discrete organs with 45 management recommendations were identified as relevant to the age of individuals eligible for LCS. The draft was piloted by 49 LCS program navigators from 32 facilities. The guide was rated as useful and clear by 95% of users. No unexpected or adverse experiences were reported in using the guide. On the basis of feedback, relevant sections were reviewed and edited. CONCLUSIONS: The ACR Lung Cancer Screening CT Incidental Findings Quick Reference Guide outlines the common IFs in LCS and can serve as an easy-to-use resource for ordering providers and LCS program navigators to help guide management.

Contextualizing the Role of Volumetric Analysis in Pulmonary Nodule Assessment: AJR Expert Panel Narrative Review.

Pulmonary nodules are managed on the basis of their size and morphologic characteristics. Radiologists are familiar with assessing nodule size by measuring diameter using manually deployed electronic calipers. Size may also be assessed with 3D volumetric measurements (referred to as volumetry) obtained with software. Nodule size and growth are more accurately assessed with volumetry than on the basis of diameter, and the evidence supporting clinical use of volumetry has expanded, driven by its use in lung cancer screening nodule management algorithms in Europe. The application of volumetry has the potential to reduce recommendations for imaging follow-up of indeterminate solid nodules without impacting cancer detection. Although changes in scanning conditions and volumetry software packages can lead to variation in volumetry results, ongoing technical advances have improved the reliability of calculated volumes. Volumetry is now the primary method for determining size of solid nodules in the European lung cancer screening position statement and British Thoracic Society recommendations. The purposes of this article are to review technical aspects, advantages, and limitations of volumetry and, by considering specific scenarios, to contextualize the use of volumetry with respect to its importance in morphologic evaluation, its role in predicting malignancy in risk models, and its practical impact on nodule management. Implementation challenges and areas requiring further evidence are also highlighted.

Improvement in Stage of Lung Cancer Diagnosis With Incidental Pulmonary Nodules Followed With a Patient Tracking System and Computerized Registry.

Introduction: Given that an incidental pulmonary nodule (IPN) on chest computed tomography (CT) may represent nascent lung cancer, timely follow-up imaging is critical to assess nodule growth and the need for tissue sampling. We previously reported our institution's systematic process to identify and track patients with an IPN associated with improved CT on follow-up. We hypothesized that this improvement may have led to a higher frequency of early-stage lung cancer. To evaluate this, we performed a study to determine whether cases of early-stage lung cancer were more likely to have had our tracking system applied to suspicious findings. Methods: An observational study was performed by identifying cases of lung cancer that were detected as IPNs on chest CT scans performed at our institution, from 2006 to 2016. A total of 314 cases were dichotomized into early-stage (stage 1) or late-stage (stages II to IV) disease. A multivariant regression analysis with modeling was used to determine factors associated with a diagnosis of early-stage disease. Factors included the use of the tracking system and nodule registry. Results: The following factors were independently associated with early-stage lung cancer: index nodule diameter, (OR = 0.971, confidence interval [CI]: 0.948-0.995], p = 0.016), adenocarcinoma histology (OR = 2.930 [CI: 1.695-5.064], p = 0.0001) and use of tracker phrases on CT reports (OR = 1.939 [CI: 1.126-3.339], p = 0.016). Conclusions: The application of a patient tracking system and computerized lung nodule registry lead to an increased frequency in the diagnosis of stage 1 NSCLC from IPNs. This is a meaningful outcome for patients and should be adapted for IPN management.

Geographic access to lung cancer screening among eligible adults living in rural and urban environments in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Although recommended lung cancer screening with low-dose computed tomography scanning (LDCT) reduces mortality among high-risk adults, annual screening rates remain low. This study complements a previous nationwide assessment of access to lung cancer screening within 40 miles by evaluating differences in accessibility across rural and urban settings for the population aged 50 to 80 years and a subset eligible population based on the 2021 US Preventive Services Task Force LDCT lung screening recommendations. METHODS: Distances from population centers to screening facilities (American College of Radiology Lung Cancer Screening Registry) were calculated, and the number of individuals who had access within graduating distances, including 10, 20, 40, 50, and 100 miles, were estimated. Census tract results were aggregated to counties, and both geographies were classified with rural-urban schemas. RESULTS: Approximately 5% of the eligible population did not have access to lung cancer screening facilities within 40 miles; however, different patterns of accessibility were observed at different distances, between regions, and across rural-urban environments. Across all distances and geographies, there was a larger percentage of the population in rural geographies with no access. Although the rural population represented approximately 8% of the eligible population, the larger percentage of the rural population with no access was noteworthy and translated into a larger number of individuals with no access at longer distance thresholds (≥40 miles). CONCLUSIONS: Disparities in access should be examined as both percentages of the population and numbers of individuals with no access in order to tailor interventions to communities and increase access. Geospatial analysis at the census tract level is recommended to help to identify optimal focus areas and reach the most people. LAY SUMMARY: As annual lung cancer screening rates remain low, this study examines access to lung cancer screening nationwide and across rural and urban settings. A geographic information system network analysis of census tract-level populations is used to estimate access at different distances, including 10, 20, 40, 50, and 100 miles, and the results are aggregated to counties. Approximately 5% of the eligible population does not have access to screening facilities within 40 miles; however, different patterns of accessibility are observed at different distances, between regions, and across rural-urban environments. Across all distances and geographies, there is a larger percentage of the population in rural geographies with no access.

Managing Incidental Findings on Thoracic CT: Lung Findings. A White Paper of the ACR Incidental Findings Committee.

The ACR Incidental Findings Committee presents recommendations for managing incidentally detected lung findings on thoracic CT. The Chest Subcommittee is composed of thoracic radiologists who endorsed and developed the provided guidance. These recommendations represent a combination of current published evidence and expert opinion and were finalized by informal iterative consensus. The recommendations address commonly encountered incidental findings in the lungs and are not intended to be a comprehensive review of all pulmonary incidental findings. The goal is to improve the quality of care by providing guidance on management of incidentally detected thoracic findings.

Improvement in Follow-up Imaging With a Patient Tracking System and Computerized Registry for Lung Nodule Management.

PURPOSE: Despite established guidelines, radiologists' recommendations and timely follow-up of incidental lung nodules remain variable. To improve follow-up of nodules, a system using standardized language (tracker phrases) recommending time-based follow-up in chest CT reports, coupled with a computerized registry, was created. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data were obtained from the electronic health record and a facility-built electronic lung nodule registry. We evaluated two randomly selected patient cohorts with incidental nodules on chest CT reports: before intervention (September 2008 to March 2011) and after intervention (August 2011 to December 2016). Multivariable logistic regression was used to compare the cohorts for the main outcome of timely follow-up, defined as a subsequent report within 13 months of the initial report. RESULTS: In all, 410 patients were included in the pretracker cohort versus 626 in the tracker cohort. Before system inception, 30% of CT reports lacked an explicit time-based recommendation for nodule follow-up. The proportion of patients with timely follow-up increased from 46% to 55%, and the proportion of those with no documented follow-up or follow-up beyond 24 months decreased from 48% to 31%. The likelihood of timely follow-up increased 41%, adjusted for high risk for lung cancer and age 65 years or older. After system inception, reports missing a tracker phrase for nodule recommendation averaged 6%, without significant interyear variation. CONCLUSIONS: Standardized language added to CT reports combined with a computerized registry designed to identify and track patients with incidental lung nodules was associated with improved likelihood of follow-up imaging.

Lung-RADS Version 1.1: Challenges and a Look Ahead, From the AJR Special Series on Radiology Reporting and Data Systems.

In 2014, the American College of Radiology (ACR) created Lung-RADS 1.0. The system was updated to Lung-RADS 1.1 in 2019, and further updates are anticipated as additional data become available. Lung-RADS provides a common lexicon and standardized nodule follow-up management paradigm for use when reporting lung cancer screening (LCS) low-dose CT (LDCT) chest examinations and serves as a quality assurance and outcome monitoring tool. The use of Lung-RADS is intended to improve LCS performance and lead to better patient outcomes. To date, the ACR's Lung Cancer Screening Registry is the only LCS registry approved by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services and requires the use of Lung-RADS categories for reimbursement. Numerous challenges have emerged regarding the use of Lung-RADS in clinical practice, including the timing of return to LCS after planned follow-up diagnostic evaluation; potential substitution of interval diagnostic CT for future LDCT; role of volumetric analysis in assessing nodule size; assessment of nodule growth; assessment of cavitary, subpleural, and category 4X nodules; and variability in reporting of the S modifier. This article highlights the major updates between versions 1.0 and 1.1 of Lung-RADS, describes the system's ongoing challenges, and summarizes current evidence and recommendations.

Using Geospatial Analysis to Evaluate Access to Lung Cancer Screening in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Screening current and former heavy smokers 55 to 80 years of age for lung cancer (LC) with low-dose chest CT scanning has been recommended by the United States Preventive Services Task Force since 2013. Although the number of screening facilities in the United States has increased, screening uptake has been slow. RESEARCH QUESTION: To what extent is geographic access to screening facilities a barrier for screening uptake nationally? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: Screening facilities were defined as American College of Radiology (ACR) Lung Cancer Screening Registry (LCSR) facilities. Analysis was performed at different geographic levels using a road network to calculate travel distances for the recommended age groups. Full access to screening was defined as the entire 55- to 79-year-old population being within 40 miles of an ACR LCSR facility. No access was defined as lack of access by the entire target population. Partial access was expressed in intervening quartiles. A geospatial approach then was used to integrate accessibility with smoking prevalence and LC mortality rates to identify potential focus areas visually. RESULTS: Screening facilities addresses were geocoded to identify 3,592 unique locations. Analysis of census tracts and aggregation to counties revealed that among 3,142 counties, adults 55 to 79 years of age have full access to an LC screening registry facility in 1,988 (63%) counties, partial access in 587 (19%) counties, and no access in 567 (18%) counties. Overall, less than 6% of those 55 to 79 years of age do not have access to registry screening facilities. Variation in screening facility access was noted across the United States, between states, and within some states. INTERPRETATION: It is recommended to calculate accessibility using subcounty geographies and to examine variation regionally and within states. A foundation geographic accessibility layer can be integrated with other variables to identify geographic disparities in access to screening and to focus on areas for interventions. Identifying areas of greatest need can inform state and local officials and healthcare organizations when planning and implementing LC screening programs.

Guidelines for the Evaluation of Pulmonary Nodules Detected Incidentally or by Screening: A Survey of Radiologist Awareness, Agreement, and Adherence From the Watch the Spot Trial.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to examine radiologists' beliefs about existing guidelines for pulmonary nodule evaluation. METHODS: A self-administered survey was developed to ascertain awareness of, agreement with, and adherence to published guidelines, including those from the Fleischner Society and the Lung CT Screening Reporting and Data System (Lung-RADS™). Surveys were distributed to 514 radiologists at 13 health care systems that are participating in a large, pragmatic trial of pulmonary nodule evaluation. Prespecified comparisons were made among groups defined by type of health system, years of experience, reader volume, and study arm. RESULTS: The response rate was 26.3%. Respondents were most familiar with guidelines from Fleischner (94%) and Lung-RADS (71%). For both incidental and screening-detected nodules, self-reported adherence to preferred guidelines was very high (97% and 94%, respectively), and most respondents believed that the benefits of adherence outweigh the harms (81% and 74%, respectively). Underlying evidence was thought to be high in quality by 68% of respondents for screening-detected nodules and 41% for incidental nodules. Approximately 70% of respondents believed that the frequency of recommended follow-up was "just right" for both guidelines. Radiologists who practice in nonintegrated health care systems were more likely to believe that the evidence was high in quality (79.5% versus 57.1%) and that the benefits of adherence outweigh the harms (85.1% versus 67.5%). Low-volume readers had lower awareness and self-reported adherence than higher volume readers. CONCLUSIONS: Radiologists reported high levels of familiarity and agreement with and adherence to guidelines for pulmonary nodule evaluation, but many overestimated the quality of evidence in support of the recommendations.

Methods for the Watch the Spot Trial. A Pragmatic Trial of More- versus Less-Intensive Strategies for Active Surveillance of Small Pulmonary Nodules.

Small pulmonary nodules are most often managed by surveillance imaging with computed tomography (CT) of the chest, but the optimal frequency and duration of surveillance are unknown. The Watch the Spot Trial is a multicenter, pragmatic, comparative-effectiveness trial with cluster randomization by hospital or health system that compares more- versus less-intensive strategies for active surveillance of small pulmonary nodules. The study plans to enroll approximately 35,200 patients with a small pulmonary nodule that is newly detected on chest CT imaging, either incidentally or by screening. Study protocols for more- and less-intensive surveillance were adapted from published guidelines. The primary outcome is the percentage of cancerous nodules that progress beyond American Joint Committee on Cancer seventh edition stage T1a. Secondary outcomes include patient-reported anxiety and emotional distress, nodule-related health care use, radiation exposure, and adherence with the assigned surveillance protocol. Distinctive aspects of the trial include: 1) the pragmatic integration of study procedures into existing clinical workflow; 2) the use of cluster randomization by hospital or health system; 3) the implementation and evaluation of a system-level intervention for protocol-based care; 4) the use of highly efficient, technology-enabled methods to identify and (passively) enroll participants; 5) reliance on data collected as part of routine clinical care, including data from electronic health records and state cancer registries; 6) linkage with state cancer registries for complete ascertainment of the primary study outcome; and 7) intensive engagement with a diverse group of patient and nonpatient stakeholders in the design and execution of the study.

Relationships Between Health Care Disparities and Coverage Policies for Breast, Colon, and Lung Cancer Screening.

Disparities in outcomes exist for breast, colon, and lung cancer among diverse populations, particularly racial and ethnic underrepresented minorities (URMs) and individuals from lower socioeconomic status. For example, blacks experience mortality rates up to about 42% higher than whites for these cancers. Furthermore, although overall death rates have been declining, the differential access to screening and care has aggravated disparities. Our purpose is to assess how the coverage policies of CMS and the United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) influence these disparities. Additionally, barriers are often encountered in accessing screening tests and receiving prompt treatment. To narrow, and potentially eliminate, outcomes disparities, CMS and USPSTF could consider revising their decision-making processes regarding coverage. Some options include (1) extending their evidence base to include observational studies that involve groups at higher risk; (2) lowering the threshold ages for screening to encompass differences in incidence; (3) CMS approving screening CT colonography coverage, which can even increase compliance with other screening tests; (4) clarifying and streamlining guidelines; (5) supporting research on improving access to screening; and (6) encouraging the development of more navigation services for URMs.

Managing Incidental Findings on Thoracic CT: Mediastinal and Cardiovascular Findings. A White Paper of the ACR Incidental Findings Committee.

The ACR Incidental Findings Committee presents recommendations for managing incidentally detected mediastinal and cardiovascular findings found on CT. The Chest Subcommittee was composed of thoracic radiologists who developed the provided guidance. These recommendations represent a combination of current published evidence and expert opinion and were finalized by informal iterative consensus. The recommendations address the most commonly encountered mediastinal and cardiovascular incidental findings and are not intended to be a comprehensive review of all incidental findings associated with these compartments. Our goal is to improve the quality of care by providing guidance on how to manage incidentally detected thoracic findings.

Radiologic diagnoses of patients who received imaging for venous thromboembolism despite negative D-dimer tests.

OBJECTIVE: The literature supports a negative D-dimer (-DD) excluding venous thromboembolic disease (VTE) in low-risk patients. We determined the radiologic diagnoses in patients where imaging was ordered despite a -DD. METHODS: This is a retrospective chart review of patients with a -DD (Tinaquant; Roche Diagnostics, Mannheim, Germany) and a radiologic study within 48 hours, sought to determine radiologic diagnosis (primary outcome), treatment of VTE, and consensus diagnosis of acute VTE. RESULTS: Among 3462 DD tests, 1678 met the inclusion criteria. Of 1362 patients with DD values of 350 ng/mL or less, 166 (12.2%) had radiologic studies: 93.4% of the final radiologic diagnoses were negative for VTE, 3.6% were indeterminate, and 3.0% (1.0%-6.9%) were positive; 1.8% ultimately had a consensus diagnosis of acute VTE. In 316 patients with DD values between 351 and 500 ng/mL, 88 (27.8%) had radiologic studies: 95.5% were negative, 1.1% were indeterminate, and 3.4% (0.7%-9.6%) were positive. CONCLUSIONS: Of patients who receive radiologic studies despite -DD tests, 3.0% have positive radiologic diagnoses for acute VTE; only 1.8% had acute VTE after the review of their hospital course.

Derivation of a clinical decision rule to exclude thoracic aortic imaging in patients with blunt chest trauma after motor vehicle collisions.

BACKGROUND: Thoracic aortic injury (TAI) is associated with high mortality. It is not practical to evaluate all patients with blunt chest trauma with dedicated aortic imaging. The purpose of this study was to define a group of patients with blunt chest trauma after motor vehicle collision (MVC) that do not require aortic imaging based on information available in the emergency department. METHODS: This was a secondary analysis of a prospectively-collected database. Consecutive patients with blunt chest trauma after MVC were included. Characteristics of mechanism, examination, and chest radiographic findings were collected for each patient. All patients underwent chest computed tomography (CT), aortography, or both for TAI evaluation. Binary recursive partitioning was used to derive and validate a clinical decision rule to predict exclusion of TAI. RESULTS: During the study period, 1,096 patients were included, and 22 (2.0%) were diagnosed with TAI. The decision rule for exclusion of TAI included findings from the chest radiograph, incorporating left paraspinous line displacement, obscured aortic knob, and mediastinal widening. The rule resulted in a sensitivity of 86% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 65% to 97%), a specificity of 77% (95% CI: 75% to 80%), a positive predictive value of 7% (95% CI: 4% to 11%), a negative predictive value (NPV) of 99.6% (95% CI: 99.0% to 99.9%), a positive likelihood ratio of 3.8 (95% CI: 1.1-12.9), and a negative likelihood ratio of 0.18 (95% CI: 0.05-0.61). This would potentially reduce aortic imaging by 76% (95% CI: 74% to 79%). CONCLUSION: We report a clinical decision rule with a high NPV for exclusion of TAI. This may standardize the approach to such patients and may reduce the need for CT.