Neglectable benefit of searching for incidental findings in the Dutch-Belgian lung cancer screening trial (NELSON) using low-dose multidetector CT

The purpose of this study was to prospectively determine the frequency and spectrum of incidental findings (IFs) and their clinical implications in a high risk population for lung cancer undergoing low-dose multidetector computed tomography (MDCT) screening for lung cancer. Scans of 1,929 participan...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:European radiology 2007-06, Vol.17 (6), p.1474-1482
Hauptverfasser: van de Wiel, J C M, Wang, Y, Xu, D M, van der Zaag-Loonen, H J, van der Jagt, E J, van Klaveren, R J, Oudkerk, M
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 1482
container_issue 6
container_start_page 1474
container_title European radiology
container_volume 17
creator van de Wiel, J C M
Wang, Y
Xu, D M
van der Zaag-Loonen, H J
van der Jagt, E J
van Klaveren, R J
Oudkerk, M
description The purpose of this study was to prospectively determine the frequency and spectrum of incidental findings (IFs) and their clinical implications in a high risk population for lung cancer undergoing low-dose multidetector computed tomography (MDCT) screening for lung cancer. Scans of 1,929 participants were evaluated for lung lesions and IFs by two radiologists. IFs were categorised as not clinically relevant or possibly clinically relevant. Findings were considered possibly clinically relevant if they could require further evaluation or could have substantial clinical implications. All possibly clinically relevant IFs were reviewed by a third radiologist, who determined its clinical relevance. Of all 1,929 participants, 1,410 (73%) had not clinically relevant IFs and 163 (8%) had possibly clinically relevant IFs of which 129 (79%) were indeed considered clinically relevant. Additional imaging was performed mainly by ultrasound (112 of 118, 96%). All but one lesion were concluded to be benign, mostly cysts (n = 115, 80%). Only 21 (1%) participants had findings with clinical implications. In one participant a malignancy was found, yet without any clinical benefit since no curative treatment was possible. Based on our results, we advise against systematically searching for and reporting of IFs in lung cancer screening studies using low-dose MDCT.
doi_str_mv 10.1007/s00330-006-0532-7
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_70482076</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>3127408647</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c393t-2e2192f6fe8e2649c6caac6fcb40809d70c3f3def4a09cc19e59e0ac59b31293</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNpdkUGLFDEQhYMo7uzqD_AiAUH00FrpZDqdo467KgyzB-ce0unKTJZMek3SiH_DX2yaGRA8VfF476uCR8grBh8YgPyYATiHBqBrYM3bRj4hKybqwqAXT8kKFO8bqZS4Itc5PwCAYkI-J1dMttCJtluRPzs8BLTFDAHpgBGdL3RyNKNJ9ujjgbopUR-tHzEWE6jzcaxyrhotR6Rf5mKPzWcMB28iDXNNWBMtJpptQowLoiRfk-92t9sf97v3dM6LGKZfzThlpKc5lEov9Yt6arN_QZ45EzK-vMwbsr-73W--Ndv7r983n7aN5YqXpsWWqdZ1DntsO6FsZ42xnbODgB7UKMFyx0d0woCylilcKwRj12rgrFX8hrw9Yx_T9HPGXPTJZ4shmIjTnLUE0bcgu2p885_xYZpTrK_pCpL1WidkdbGzy6Yp54ROPyZ_Mum3ZqCXtvS5LV3b0ktbesm8vpDn4YTjv8SlHv4Xh-GRLQ</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>3127408647</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Neglectable benefit of searching for incidental findings in the Dutch-Belgian lung cancer screening trial (NELSON) using low-dose multidetector CT</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>SpringerLink (Online service)</source><creator>van de Wiel, J C M ; Wang, Y ; Xu, D M ; van der Zaag-Loonen, H J ; van der Jagt, E J ; van Klaveren, R J ; Oudkerk, M</creator><creatorcontrib>van de Wiel, J C M ; Wang, Y ; Xu, D M ; van der Zaag-Loonen, H J ; van der Jagt, E J ; van Klaveren, R J ; Oudkerk, M ; NELSON study group ; on behalf of the NELSON study group</creatorcontrib><description>The purpose of this study was to prospectively determine the frequency and spectrum of incidental findings (IFs) and their clinical implications in a high risk population for lung cancer undergoing low-dose multidetector computed tomography (MDCT) screening for lung cancer. Scans of 1,929 participants were evaluated for lung lesions and IFs by two radiologists. IFs were categorised as not clinically relevant or possibly clinically relevant. Findings were considered possibly clinically relevant if they could require further evaluation or could have substantial clinical implications. All possibly clinically relevant IFs were reviewed by a third radiologist, who determined its clinical relevance. Of all 1,929 participants, 1,410 (73%) had not clinically relevant IFs and 163 (8%) had possibly clinically relevant IFs of which 129 (79%) were indeed considered clinically relevant. Additional imaging was performed mainly by ultrasound (112 of 118, 96%). All but one lesion were concluded to be benign, mostly cysts (n = 115, 80%). Only 21 (1%) participants had findings with clinical implications. In one participant a malignancy was found, yet without any clinical benefit since no curative treatment was possible. Based on our results, we advise against systematically searching for and reporting of IFs in lung cancer screening studies using low-dose MDCT.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0938-7994</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1432-1084</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1007/s00330-006-0532-7</identifier><identifier>PMID: 17206426</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Germany: Springer Nature B.V</publisher><subject>Aged ; Cancer screening ; Chi-Square Distribution ; Computed tomography ; Female ; Humans ; Incidental Findings ; Lesions ; Lung cancer ; Lung Neoplasms - diagnostic imaging ; Male ; Malignancy ; Mass Screening - methods ; Medical screening ; Middle Aged ; Multicenter Studies as Topic ; Netherlands ; Population studies ; Prospective Studies ; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic ; Searching ; Tomography, X-Ray Computed - methods ; Ultrasonography</subject><ispartof>European radiology, 2007-06, Vol.17 (6), p.1474-1482</ispartof><rights>Springer-Verlag 2007.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c393t-2e2192f6fe8e2649c6caac6fcb40809d70c3f3def4a09cc19e59e0ac59b31293</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c393t-2e2192f6fe8e2649c6caac6fcb40809d70c3f3def4a09cc19e59e0ac59b31293</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,27903,27904</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17206426$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>van de Wiel, J C M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wang, Y</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Xu, D M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>van der Zaag-Loonen, H J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>van der Jagt, E J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>van Klaveren, R J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Oudkerk, M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>NELSON study group</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>on behalf of the NELSON study group</creatorcontrib><title>Neglectable benefit of searching for incidental findings in the Dutch-Belgian lung cancer screening trial (NELSON) using low-dose multidetector CT</title><title>European radiology</title><addtitle>Eur Radiol</addtitle><description>The purpose of this study was to prospectively determine the frequency and spectrum of incidental findings (IFs) and their clinical implications in a high risk population for lung cancer undergoing low-dose multidetector computed tomography (MDCT) screening for lung cancer. Scans of 1,929 participants were evaluated for lung lesions and IFs by two radiologists. IFs were categorised as not clinically relevant or possibly clinically relevant. Findings were considered possibly clinically relevant if they could require further evaluation or could have substantial clinical implications. All possibly clinically relevant IFs were reviewed by a third radiologist, who determined its clinical relevance. Of all 1,929 participants, 1,410 (73%) had not clinically relevant IFs and 163 (8%) had possibly clinically relevant IFs of which 129 (79%) were indeed considered clinically relevant. Additional imaging was performed mainly by ultrasound (112 of 118, 96%). All but one lesion were concluded to be benign, mostly cysts (n = 115, 80%). Only 21 (1%) participants had findings with clinical implications. In one participant a malignancy was found, yet without any clinical benefit since no curative treatment was possible. Based on our results, we advise against systematically searching for and reporting of IFs in lung cancer screening studies using low-dose MDCT.</description><subject>Aged</subject><subject>Cancer screening</subject><subject>Chi-Square Distribution</subject><subject>Computed tomography</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Incidental Findings</subject><subject>Lesions</subject><subject>Lung cancer</subject><subject>Lung Neoplasms - diagnostic imaging</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Malignancy</subject><subject>Mass Screening - methods</subject><subject>Medical screening</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>Multicenter Studies as Topic</subject><subject>Netherlands</subject><subject>Population studies</subject><subject>Prospective Studies</subject><subject>Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic</subject><subject>Searching</subject><subject>Tomography, X-Ray Computed - methods</subject><subject>Ultrasonography</subject><issn>0938-7994</issn><issn>1432-1084</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2007</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><recordid>eNpdkUGLFDEQhYMo7uzqD_AiAUH00FrpZDqdo467KgyzB-ce0unKTJZMek3SiH_DX2yaGRA8VfF476uCR8grBh8YgPyYATiHBqBrYM3bRj4hKybqwqAXT8kKFO8bqZS4Itc5PwCAYkI-J1dMttCJtluRPzs8BLTFDAHpgBGdL3RyNKNJ9ujjgbopUR-tHzEWE6jzcaxyrhotR6Rf5mKPzWcMB28iDXNNWBMtJpptQowLoiRfk-92t9sf97v3dM6LGKZfzThlpKc5lEov9Yt6arN_QZ45EzK-vMwbsr-73W--Ndv7r983n7aN5YqXpsWWqdZ1DntsO6FsZ42xnbODgB7UKMFyx0d0woCylilcKwRj12rgrFX8hrw9Yx_T9HPGXPTJZ4shmIjTnLUE0bcgu2p885_xYZpTrK_pCpL1WidkdbGzy6Yp54ROPyZ_Mum3ZqCXtvS5LV3b0ktbesm8vpDn4YTjv8SlHv4Xh-GRLQ</recordid><startdate>20070601</startdate><enddate>20070601</enddate><creator>van de Wiel, J C M</creator><creator>Wang, Y</creator><creator>Xu, D M</creator><creator>van der Zaag-Loonen, H J</creator><creator>van der Jagt, E J</creator><creator>van Klaveren, R J</creator><creator>Oudkerk, M</creator><general>Springer Nature B.V</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7QO</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FG</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ARAPS</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BBNVY</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BGLVJ</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>LK8</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M7P</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>P5Z</scope><scope>P62</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20070601</creationdate><title>Neglectable benefit of searching for incidental findings in the Dutch-Belgian lung cancer screening trial (NELSON) using low-dose multidetector CT</title><author>van de Wiel, J C M ; Wang, Y ; Xu, D M ; van der Zaag-Loonen, H J ; van der Jagt, E J ; van Klaveren, R J ; Oudkerk, M</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c393t-2e2192f6fe8e2649c6caac6fcb40809d70c3f3def4a09cc19e59e0ac59b31293</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2007</creationdate><topic>Aged</topic><topic>Cancer screening</topic><topic>Chi-Square Distribution</topic><topic>Computed tomography</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Incidental Findings</topic><topic>Lesions</topic><topic>Lung cancer</topic><topic>Lung Neoplasms - diagnostic imaging</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Malignancy</topic><topic>Mass Screening - methods</topic><topic>Medical screening</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>Multicenter Studies as Topic</topic><topic>Netherlands</topic><topic>Population studies</topic><topic>Prospective Studies</topic><topic>Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic</topic><topic>Searching</topic><topic>Tomography, X-Ray Computed - methods</topic><topic>Ultrasonography</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>van de Wiel, J C M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wang, Y</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Xu, D M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>van der Zaag-Loonen, H J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>van der Jagt, E J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>van Klaveren, R J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Oudkerk, M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>NELSON study group</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>on behalf of the NELSON study group</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Biotechnology Research Abstracts</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Database</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Technology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies &amp; Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Technology Collection</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Biological Sciences</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>PML(ProQuest Medical Library)</collection><collection>Biological Science Database</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>ProQuest advanced technologies &amp; aerospace journals</collection><collection>ProQuest Advanced Technologies &amp; Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>European radiology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>van de Wiel, J C M</au><au>Wang, Y</au><au>Xu, D M</au><au>van der Zaag-Loonen, H J</au><au>van der Jagt, E J</au><au>van Klaveren, R J</au><au>Oudkerk, M</au><aucorp>NELSON study group</aucorp><aucorp>on behalf of the NELSON study group</aucorp><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Neglectable benefit of searching for incidental findings in the Dutch-Belgian lung cancer screening trial (NELSON) using low-dose multidetector CT</atitle><jtitle>European radiology</jtitle><addtitle>Eur Radiol</addtitle><date>2007-06-01</date><risdate>2007</risdate><volume>17</volume><issue>6</issue><spage>1474</spage><epage>1482</epage><pages>1474-1482</pages><issn>0938-7994</issn><eissn>1432-1084</eissn><abstract>The purpose of this study was to prospectively determine the frequency and spectrum of incidental findings (IFs) and their clinical implications in a high risk population for lung cancer undergoing low-dose multidetector computed tomography (MDCT) screening for lung cancer. Scans of 1,929 participants were evaluated for lung lesions and IFs by two radiologists. IFs were categorised as not clinically relevant or possibly clinically relevant. Findings were considered possibly clinically relevant if they could require further evaluation or could have substantial clinical implications. All possibly clinically relevant IFs were reviewed by a third radiologist, who determined its clinical relevance. Of all 1,929 participants, 1,410 (73%) had not clinically relevant IFs and 163 (8%) had possibly clinically relevant IFs of which 129 (79%) were indeed considered clinically relevant. Additional imaging was performed mainly by ultrasound (112 of 118, 96%). All but one lesion were concluded to be benign, mostly cysts (n = 115, 80%). Only 21 (1%) participants had findings with clinical implications. In one participant a malignancy was found, yet without any clinical benefit since no curative treatment was possible. Based on our results, we advise against systematically searching for and reporting of IFs in lung cancer screening studies using low-dose MDCT.</abstract><cop>Germany</cop><pub>Springer Nature B.V</pub><pmid>17206426</pmid><doi>10.1007/s00330-006-0532-7</doi><tpages>9</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0938-7994
ispartof European radiology, 2007-06, Vol.17 (6), p.1474-1482
issn 0938-7994
1432-1084
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_70482076
source MEDLINE; SpringerLink (Online service)
subjects Aged
Cancer screening
Chi-Square Distribution
Computed tomography
Female
Humans
Incidental Findings
Lesions
Lung cancer
Lung Neoplasms - diagnostic imaging
Male
Malignancy
Mass Screening - methods
Medical screening
Middle Aged
Multicenter Studies as Topic
Netherlands
Population studies
Prospective Studies
Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
Searching
Tomography, X-Ray Computed - methods
Ultrasonography
title Neglectable benefit of searching for incidental findings in the Dutch-Belgian lung cancer screening trial (NELSON) using low-dose multidetector CT
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-27T20%3A36%3A42IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Neglectable%20benefit%20of%20searching%20for%20incidental%20findings%20in%20the%20Dutch-Belgian%20lung%20cancer%20screening%20trial%20(NELSON)%20using%20low-dose%20multidetector%20CT&rft.jtitle=European%20radiology&rft.au=van%20de%20Wiel,%20J%20C%20M&rft.aucorp=NELSON%20study%20group&rft.date=2007-06-01&rft.volume=17&rft.issue=6&rft.spage=1474&rft.epage=1482&rft.pages=1474-1482&rft.issn=0938-7994&rft.eissn=1432-1084&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007/s00330-006-0532-7&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E3127408647%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=3127408647&rft_id=info:pmid/17206426&rfr_iscdi=true