For Publishers
DiscoveryMetadataPeer reviewHostingPublishing
For Researchers
JoinPublishReviewCollect
Register
Blog
About
Search
Advanced search
My ScienceOpen
Search
For Publishers
For Researchers
Blog
About
14
views
16
references
 Top references
cited by
182
    
0 reviews
 Review
0
comments
 Comment
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      1,572
      similar
       All similar
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: not found
      • Article: not found

      Recent Trends in the Identification of Incidental Pulmonary Nodules

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPubMed
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Pulmonary nodules are common incidental findings, but information about their incidence in the era of computed tomography (CT) is lacking.

          Related collections

          Most cited references16

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Benefits and harms of CT screening for lung cancer: a systematic review.

          Peter B Bach, Joshua Mirkin, Thomas Oliver … (2012)
          Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer death. Most patients are diagnosed with advanced disease, resulting in a very low 5-year survival. Screening may reduce the risk of death from lung cancer. To conduct a systematic review of the evidence regarding the benefits and harms of lung cancer screening using low-dose computed tomography (LDCT). A multisociety collaborative initiative (involving the American Cancer Society, American College of Chest Physicians, American Society of Clinical Oncology, and National Comprehensive Cancer Network) was undertaken to create the foundation for development of an evidence-based clinical guideline. MEDLINE (Ovid: January 1996 to April 2012), EMBASE (Ovid: January 1996 to April 2012), and the Cochrane Library (April 2012). Of 591 citations identified and reviewed, 8 randomized trials and 13 cohort studies of LDCT screening met criteria for inclusion. Primary outcomes were lung cancer mortality and all-cause mortality, and secondary outcomes included nodule detection, invasive procedures, follow-up tests, and smoking cessation. Critical appraisal using predefined criteria was conducted on individual studies and the overall body of evidence. Differences in data extracted by reviewers were adjudicated by consensus. Three randomized studies provided evidence on the effect of LDCT screening on lung cancer mortality, of which the National Lung Screening Trial was the most informative, demonstrating that among 53,454 participants enrolled, screening resulted in significantly fewer lung cancer deaths (356 vs 443 deaths; lung cancer−specific mortality, 274 vs 309 events per 100,000 person-years for LDCT and control groups, respectively; relative risk, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.73-0.93; absolute risk reduction, 0.33%; P = .004). The other 2 smaller studies showed no such benefit. In terms of potential harms of LDCT screening, across all trials and cohorts, approximately 20% of individuals in each round of screening had positive results requiring some degree of follow-up, while approximately 1% had lung cancer. There was marked heterogeneity in this finding and in the frequency of follow-up investigations, biopsies, and percentage of surgical procedures performed in patients with benign lesions. Major complications in those with benign conditions were rare. Low-dose computed tomography screening may benefit individuals at an increased risk for lung cancer, but uncertainty exists about the potential harms of screening and the generalizability of results.
          Article 0 comments Cited 317 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Guidelines for management of small pulmonary nodules detected on CT scans: a statement from the Fleischner Society.

            Heber MacMahon, John Austin, Gordon Gamsu … (2005)
            Lung nodules are detected very commonly on computed tomographic (CT) scans of the chest, and the ability to detect very small nodules improves with each new generation of CT scanner. In reported studies, up to 51% of smokers aged 50 years or older have pulmonary nodules on CT scans. However, the existing guidelines for follow-up and management of noncalcified nodules detected on nonscreening CT scans were developed before widespread use of multi-detector row CT and still indicate that every indeterminate nodule should be followed with serial CT for a minimum of 2 years. This policy, which requires large numbers of studies to be performed at considerable expense and with substantial radiation exposure for the affected population, has not proved to be beneficial or cost-effective. During the past 5 years, new information regarding prevalence, biologic characteristics, and growth rates of small lung cancers has become available; thus, the authors believe that the time-honored requirement to follow every small indeterminate nodule with serial CT should be revised. In this statement, which has been approved by the Fleischner Society, the pertinent data are reviewed, the authors' conclusions are summarized, and new guidelines are proposed for follow-up and management of small pulmonary nodules detected on CT scans.
            Article 0 comments Cited 248 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              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.

              D. Midthun, T P Naidich, Jessica S. Donington … (2013)
              The objective of this article is to update previous evidence-based recommendations for evaluation and management of individuals with solid pulmonary nodules and to generate new recommendations for those with nonsolid nodules. We updated prior literature reviews, synthesized evidence, and formulated recommendations by using the methods described in the "Methodology for Development of Guidelines for Lung Cancer" in the American College of Chest Physicians Lung Cancer Guidelines, 3rd ed. We formulated recommendations for evaluating solid pulmonary nodules that measure > 8 mm in diameter, solid nodules that measure ≤ 8 mm in diameter, and subsolid nodules. The recommendations stress the value of assessing the probability of malignancy, the utility of imaging tests, the need to weigh the benefits and harms of different management strategies (nonsurgical biopsy, surgical resection, and surveillance with chest CT imaging), and the importance of eliciting patient preferences. Individuals with pulmonary nodules should be evaluated and managed by estimating the probability of malignancy, performing imaging tests to better characterize the lesions, evaluating the risks associated with various management alternatives, and eliciting their preferences for management.
              Article 0 comments Cited 199 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
                Bookmark
                All references

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Title: American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine
                Abbreviated Title: Am J Respir Crit Care Med
                Publisher: American Thoracic Society
                ISSN (Print): 1073-449X
                ISSN (Electronic): 1535-4970
                Publication date Created: November 15 2015
                Publication date (Print): November 15 2015
                Volume: 192
                Issue: 10
                Pages: 1208-1214
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Research and Evaluation, Kaiser Permanente Southern California, Pasadena, California
                [2 ]Kaiser Permanente Los Angeles Medical Center, Los Angeles, California
                [3 ]Kaiser Permanente Baldwin Park Medical Center, Baldwin Park, California; and
                [4 ]Kaiser Permanente West Los Angeles Medical Center, Los Angeles, California
                Article
                DOI: 10.1164/rccm.201505-0990OC
                PubMed ID: 26214244
                SO-VID: 7432f98a-299f-4c73-9701-2dfc42651de8
                Copyright © © 2015
                History

                Data availability:

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                scite_

                Similar content1,572

                See all similar

                Cited by182

                See all cited by

                Most referenced authors355

                See all reference authors