Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29121063›Full record

ArticlePloS one2017

Malignancy risk estimation of pulmonary nodules in screening CTs: Comparison between a computer model and human observers.

Sarah J van Riel, Francesco Ciompi, Mathilde M Winkler Wille, Asger Dirksen, Stephen Lam, Ernst Th Scholten, Santiago E Rossi, Nicola Sverzellati, Matiullah Naqibullah, Rianne Wittenberg and 8 more

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

19 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Contemporary issues in the implementation of lung cancer screening.European respiratory review : an official journal of the European Respiratory Society · 2021
    Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. The radiologist's role in lung cancer screening.Translational lung cancer research · 2021
    Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Artificial intelligence (AI) and big data in cancer and precision oncology.Computational and structural biotechnology journal · 2020
    Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Biomarkers in Lung Cancer Screening: Achievements, Promises, and Challenges.Journal of thoracic oncology : official publication of the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer · 2019
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

18 authors.

Sarah J van RielDepartment of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1115-3136
Francesco CiompiDepartment of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Mathilde M Winkler WilleDepartment of Diagnostic Imaging, Section of Radiology, Nordsjællands Hospital, Hillerød, Denmark.
Asger DirksenDepartment of Pulmonology, Gentofte Hospital, University of Copenhagen, Hellerup, Denmark.
Stephen LamDepartment of Integrative Oncology, British Columbia Cancer Agency, Vancouver, Canada.
Ernst Th ScholtenDepartment of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Santiago E RossiDepartment of Radiology, Centro de Diagnostico Dr Enrique Rossi, Buenos Aires, Argentina.
Nicola SverzellatiDepartment of Clinical Sciences, Division of Radiology, University Hospital of Parma, Parma, Italy.
Matiullah NaqibullahDepartment of Pulmonology, Gentofte Hospital, University of Copenhagen, Hellerup, Denmark.
Rianne WittenbergDepartment of Radiology, Vrije Universiteit Medisch Centrum, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Marieke C Hovinga-de BoerDepartment of Radiology, Meander Medical Center, Amersfoort, the Netherlands.
Miranda SnoerenDepartment of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Liesbeth Peters-BaxDepartment of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Onno MetsDepartment of Radiology, UMC Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Monique BrinkDepartment of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Mathias ProkopDepartment of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Cornelia Schaefer-ProkopDepartment of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Bram van GinnekenDepartment of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo compare human observers to a mathematically derived computer model for differentiation between malignant and benign pulmonary nodules detected on baseline screening computed tomography (CT) scans.

methodsA case-cohort study design was chosen. The study group consisted of 300 chest CT scans from the Danish Lung Cancer Screening Trial (DLCST). It included all scans with proven malignancies (n = 62) and two subsets of randomly selected baseline scans with benign nodules of all sizes (n = 120) and matched in size to the cancers, respectively (n = 118). Eleven observers and the computer model (PanCan) assigned a malignancy probability score to each nodule. Performances were expressed by area under the ROC curve (AUC). Performance differences were tested using the Dorfman, Berbaum and Metz method. Seven observers assessed morphological nodule characteristics using a predefined list. Differences in morphological features between malignant and size-matched benign nodules were analyzed using chi-square analysis with Bonferroni correction. A significant difference was defined at p < 0.004.

resultsPerformances of the model and observers were equivalent (AUC 0.932 versus 0.910, p = 0.184) for risk-assessment of malignant and benign nodules of all sizes. However, human readers performed superior to the computer model for differentiating malignant nodules from size-matched benign nodules (AUC 0.819 versus 0.706, p < 0.001). Large variations between observers were seen for ROC areas and ranges of risk scores. Morphological findings indicative of malignancy referred to border characteristics (spiculation, p < 0.001) and perinodular architectural deformation (distortion of surrounding lung parenchyma architecture, p < 0.001; pleural retraction, p = 0.002).

conclusionsComputer model and human observers perform equivalent for differentiating malignant from randomly selected benign nodules, confirming the high potential of computer models for nodule risk estimation in population based screening studies. However, computer models highly rely on size as discriminator. Incorporation of other morphological criteria used by human observers to superiorly discriminate size-matched malignant from benign nodules, will further improve computer performance.

Indexed as

Mass ScreeningRadiographic Image Interpretation, Computer-AssistedTomography, X-Ray ComputedAgedFemaleHumansLung NeoplasmsMaleMiddle AgedProbabilityRisk FactorsSolitary Pulmonary Nodule

Identifiers

PMID29121063
PMCPMC5679538

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.