Risk stratification of indeterminate pulmonary nodules.

Rafael Paez, Michael N Kammer, Pierre Massion
Author Information
  1. Rafael Paez: Division of Allergy, Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Department of Medicine, Vanderbilt University Medical Center.
  2. Michael N Kammer: Division of Allergy, Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Department of Medicine, Vanderbilt University Medical Center.
  3. Pierre Massion: Division of Allergy, Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Department of Medicine, Vanderbilt University Medical Center.

Abstract

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: lung cancer remains the leading cause of cancer-related death in the United States, with poor overall 5-year survival. Early detection and diagnosis are key to survival as demonstrated in lung cancer screening trials. However, with increasing implementation of screening guidelines and use of computed tomography, there has been a sharp rise in the incidence of indeterminate pulmonary nodules (IPNs). Risk stratification of IPNs, particularly those in the intermediate-risk category, remains challenging in clinical practice. Individual risk factors, imaging characteristics, biomarkers, and prediction models are currently used to assist in risk stratifying patients, but such strategies remain suboptimal. This review focuses on established risk stratification methods, current areas of research, and future directions.
RECENT FINDINGS: The multitude of yearly incidental and screening-detected IPNs, its management-related healthcare costs, and risk of invasive procedures provides a strong rationale for risk stratification efforts. The development of new molecular and imaging biomarkers to discriminate benign from malignant lung nodules shows great promise. Yet, risk stratification methods need integration into the diagnostic workflow and await validation in prospective, biomarker-driven clinical trials.
SUMMARY: Novel biomarkers and new imaging analysis, including radiomics and deep-learning methods, have been developed to optimize the risk stratification of IPNs. While promising, additional validation and clinical studies are needed before they can be part of routine clinical practice.

References

  1. Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2020. CA Cancer J Clin 2020; 70:7–30.
  2. Howlader N, Forjaz G, Mooradian MJ, et al. The effect of advances in lung-cancer treatment on population mortality. N Engl J Med 2020; 383:640–649.
  3. Aberle DR, Adams AM, Berg CD, et al. Reduced lung-cancer mortality with low-dose computed tomographic screening. N Engl J Med 2011; 365:395–409.
  4. de Koning HJ, van der Aalst CM, de Jong PA, et al. Reduced lung-cancer mortality with volume CT screening in a randomized trial. N Engl J Med 2020; 382:503–513.
  5. Krist AH, Davidson KW, Mangione CM, et al. Screening for lung cancer: US Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. JAMA 2021; 325:962–970.
  6. Gould MK, Tang T, Liu IL, et al. Recent trends in the identification of incidental pulmonary nodules. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2015; 192:1208–1214.
  7. Gould MK, Donington J, Lynch WR, et al. 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. Chest 2013; 143: (5 Suppl): e93S–e120S.
  8. Baldwin DR, Callister ME. Guideline Development Group. The British Thoracic Society guidelines on the investigation and management of pulmonary nodules. Thorax 2015; 70:794–798.
  9. MacMahon H, Naidich DP, Goo JM, et al. Guidelines for management of incidental pulmonary nodules detected on CT images: from the Fleischner Society 2017. Radiology 2017; 284:228–243.
  10. ACR. Lung CT screening reporting and data system (Lung-RADSTM). 2015; Reston, VA, USA: American College of Radiology, https://wwwacrorg/Quality-Safety/Resources/LungRADShttps://wwwacrorg/Quality-Safety/Resources/LungRADS . [Accessed 5 March 2021].
  11. Network NCC. NCCN guidelines for patients: lung cancer screening. London, UK: British Thoracic Society; 2020.
  12. Callister ME, Baldwin DR, Akram AR, et al. British Thoracic Society guidelines for the investigation and management of pulmonary nodules. Thorax 2015; 70: (Suppl 2): ii1–ii54.
  13. Lokhandwala T, Bittoni MA, Dann RA, et al. Costs of diagnostic assessment for lung cancer: a Medicare claims analysis. Clin Lung Cancer 2017; 18:e27–e34.
  14. Freiman MR, Clark JA, Slatore CG, et al. Patients’ knowledge, beliefs, and distress associated with detection and evaluation of incidental pulmonary nodules for cancer: results from a multicenter survey. J Thorac Oncol 2016; 11:700–708.
  15. Maiga AW, Deppen SA, Mercaldo SF, et al. Assessment of fluorodeoxyglucose F18-labeled positron emission tomography for diagnosis of high-risk lung nodules. JAMA Surg 2018; 153:329–334.
  16. Deppen SA, Blume JD, Kensinger CD, et al. Accuracy of FDG-PET to diagnose lung cancer in areas with infectious lung disease: a meta-analysis. JAMA 2014; 312:1227–1236.
  17. Infante M, Cavuto S, Lutman FR, et al. A randomized study of lung cancer screening with spiral computed tomography: three-year results from the DANTE trial. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2009; 180:445–453.
  18. Wille MM, Dirksen A, Ashraf H, et al. Results of the randomized Danish Lung Cancer Screening Trial with focus on high-risk profiling. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2016; 193:542–551.
  19. Saghir Z, Dirksen A, Ashraf H, et al. CT screening for lung cancer brings forward early disease. The randomised Danish Lung Cancer Screening Trial: status after five annual screening rounds with low-dose CT. Thorax 2012; 67:296–301.
  20. Deppen S, Putnam JB Jr, Andrade G, et al. Accuracy of FDG-PET to diagnose lung cancer in a region of endemic granulomatous disease. Ann Thorac Surg 2011; 92:428–432. discussion 33.
  21. McWilliams A, Tammemagi MC, Mayo JR, et al. Probability of cancer in pulmonary nodules detected on first screening CT. N Engl J Med 2013; 369:910–919.
  22. Tanner NT, Porter A, Gould MK, et al. Physician assessment of pretest probability of malignancy and adherence with guidelines for pulmonary nodule evaluation. Chest 2017; 152:263–270.
  23. Horeweg N, van Rosmalen J, Heuvelmans MA, et al. Lung cancer probability in patients with CT-detected pulmonary nodules: a prespecified analysis of data from the NELSON trial of low-dose CT screening. Lancet Oncol 2014; 15:1332–1341.
  24. Swensen SJ, Silverstein MD, Ilstrup DM, et al. The probability of malignancy in solitary pulmonary nodules. Application to small radiologically indeterminate nodules. Arch Intern Med 1997; 157:849–855.
  25. Gould MK, Ananth L, Barnett PG. A clinical model to estimate the pretest probability of lung cancer in patients with solitary pulmonary nodules. Chest 2007; 131:383–388.
  26. Herder GJ, van Tinteren H, Golding RP, et al. Clinical prediction model to characterize pulmonary nodules: validation and added value of 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography. Chest 2005; 128:2490–2496.
  27. Deppen SA, Blume JD, Aldrich MC, et al. Predicting lung cancer prior to surgical resection in patients with lung nodules. J Thorac Oncol 2014; 9:1477–1484.
  28. Horeweg N, Scholten ET, de Jong PA, et al. Detection of lung cancer through low-dose CT screening (NELSON): a prespecified analysis of screening test performance and interval cancers. Lancet Oncol 2014; 15:1342–1350.
  29. van Klaveren RJ, Oudkerk M, Prokop M, et al. Management of lung nodules detected by volume CT scanning. N Engl J Med 2009; 361:2221–2229.
  30. Henschke CI, Yankelevitz DF, Yip R, et al. Lung cancers diagnosed at annual CT screening: volume doubling times. Radiology 2012; 263:578–583.
  31. Chang B, Hwang JH, Choi YH, et al. Natural history of pure ground-glass opacity lung nodules detected by low-dose CT scan. Chest 2013; 143:172–178.
  32. Nomori H, Watanabe K, Ohtsuka T, et al. Evaluation of F-18 fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) PET scanning for pulmonary nodules less than 3 cm in diameter, with special reference to the CT images. Lung Cancer 2004; 45:19–27.
  33. Khalaf M, Abdel-Nabi H, Baker J, et al. Relation between nodule size and 18F-FDG-PET SUV for malignant and benign pulmonary nodules. J Hematol Oncol 2008; 1:13.
  34. Choi HK, Ghobrial M, Mazzone PJ. Models to estimate the probability of malignancy in patients with pulmonary nodules. Ann Am Thorac Soc 2018; 15:1117–1126.
  35. Deppen SA, Grogan EL. Using clinical risk models for lung nodule classification. Semin Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2015; 27:30–35.
  36. Gonzalez Maldonado S, Delorme S, Husing A, et al. Evaluation of prediction models for identifying malignancy in pulmonary nodules detected via low-dose computed tomography. JAMA Netw Open 2020; 3:e1921221.
  37. Al-Ameri A, Malhotra P, Thygesen H, et al. Risk of malignancy in pulmonary nodules: a validation study of four prediction models. Lung Cancer 2015; 89:27–30.
  38. Yang B, Jhun BW, Shin SH, et al. Comparison of four models predicting the malignancy of pulmonary nodules: a single-center study of Korean adults. PLoS One 2018; 13:e0201242.
  39. Nair VS, Sundaram V, Desai M, Gould MK. Accuracy of models to identify lung nodule cancer risk in the national lung screening trial. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2018; 197:1220–1223.
  40. Massion PP, Antic S, Ather S, et al. Assessing the accuracy of a deep learning method to risk stratify indeterminate pulmonary nodules. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2020; 202:241–249.
  41. Silvestri GA, Tanner NT, Kearney P, et al. Assessment of plasma proteomics biomarker's ability to distinguish benign from malignant lung nodules: results of the PANOPTIC (Pulmonary Nodule Plasma Proteomic Classifier) Trial. Chest 2018; 154:491–500.
  42. Boyle P, Chapman CJ, Holdenrieder S, et al. Clinical validation of an autoantibody test for lung cancer. Ann Oncol 2011; 22:383–389.
  43. Lam S, Boyle P, Healey GF, et al. EarlyCDT-Lung: an immunobiomarker test as an aid to early detection of lung cancer. Cancer Prev Res (Phila) 2011; 4:1126–1134.
  44. Kammer MN, Massion PP. Noninvasive biomarkers for lung cancer diagnosis, where do we stand? J Thorac Dis 2020; 12:3317–3330.
  45. Balagurunathan Y, Schabath MB, Wang H, et al. Quantitative imaging features improve discrimination of malignancy in pulmonary nodules. Sci Rep 2019; 9:8528.
  46. Gillies RJ, Kinahan PE, Hricak H. Radiomics: images are more than pictures, they are data. Radiology 2016; 278:563–577.
  47. Schabath MB, Gillies RJ. Noninvasive quantitative imaging-based biomarkers and lung cancer screening. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2015; 192:654–656.
  48. Cherezov D, Hawkins SH, Goldgof DB, et al. Delta radiomic features improve prediction for lung cancer incidence: a nested case–control analysis of the National Lung Screening Trial. Cancer Med 2018; 7:6340–6356.
  49. Ardila D, Kiraly AP, Bharadwaj S, et al. End-to-end lung cancer screening with three-dimensional deep learning on low-dose chest computed tomography. Nat Med 2019; 25:954–961.
  50. Baldwin DR, Gustafson J, Pickup L, et al. External validation of a convolutional neural network artificial intelligence tool to predict malignancy in pulmonary nodules. Thorax 2020; 75:306–312.
  51. Huang P, Lin CT, Li Y, et al. Prediction of lung cancer risk at follow-up screening with low-dose CT: a training and validation study of a deep learning method. Lancet Digit Health 2019; 1:e353–e362.
  52. Kattan MW, Hess KR, Amin MB, et al. American Joint Committee on Cancer acceptance criteria for inclusion of risk models for individualized prognosis in the practice of precision medicine. CA Cancer J Clin 2016; 66:370–374.

MeSH Term

Early Detection of Cancer
Humans
Lung Neoplasms
Multiple Pulmonary Nodules
Prospective Studies
Risk Assessment

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0riskstratificationIPNsclinicalnodulesimagingbiomarkersmethodscancerremainssurvivallungscreeningtrialsindeterminatepulmonaryRiskpracticenewvalidationPURPOSEOFREVIEW:Lungleadingcausecancer-relateddeathUnitedStatespooroverall5-yearEarlydetectiondiagnosiskeydemonstratedHoweverincreasingimplementationguidelinesusecomputedtomographysharpriseincidenceparticularlyintermediate-riskcategorychallengingIndividualfactorscharacteristicspredictionmodelscurrentlyusedassiststratifyingpatientsstrategiesremainsuboptimalreviewfocusesestablishedcurrentareasresearchfuturedirectionsRECENTFINDINGS:multitudeyearlyincidentalscreening-detectedmanagement-relatedhealthcarecostsinvasiveproceduresprovidesstrongrationaleeffortsdevelopmentmoleculardiscriminatebenignmalignantshowsgreatpromiseYetneedintegrationdiagnosticworkflowawaitprospectivebiomarker-drivenSUMMARY:Novelanalysisincludingradiomicsdeep-learningdevelopedoptimizepromisingadditionalstudiesneededcanpartroutine

Similar Articles

Cited By (12)