ArticleEuropean radiology2021
External validation and comparison of the Brock model and Lung-RADS for the baseline lung cancer CT screening using data from the Korean Lung Cancer Screening Project.
Article in European radiology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03394703 (Korean Lung Cancer Screening Project for High-risk Smokers to Evaluate Effectiveness and Feasibility of Lung Cancer Screening With Low-dose Computed Tomography for Implementing National Cancer Screening Program), which is not on this map. Cited by 7 papers.
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.
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.
Korean Lung Cancer Screening Project for High-risk Smokers to Evaluate Effectiveness and Feasibility of Lung Cancer Screening With Low-dose Computed Tomography for Implementing National Cancer Screening Program
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Rationale for the Nodule Management Protocol of the Australian National Lung Cancer Screening Program.Journal of medical imaging and radiation oncology · 2026Review
- Performance of a screening-trained DL model for pulmonary nodule malignancy estimation of incidental clinical nodules.European radiology · 2026Article
- Lung Cancer Risk Prediction in Patients with Persistent Pulmonary Nodules Using the Brock Model and Sybil Model.Cancers · 2025Article
- Minimally invasive biomarkers for triaging lung nodules-challenges and future perspectives.Cancer metastasis reviews · 2025Review
- Clinical Adjuncts to Lung Cancer Screening: A Narrative Review.Thoracic surgery clinics · 2023Review
- A lung cancer risk warning model based on tongue images.Frontiers in physiology · 2023Article
- Effectiveness of radiologist training in improving reader agreement for Lung-RADS 4X categorization.European radiology · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesTo validate and compare the performance of the Brock model and Lung CT Screening Reporting and Data System (Lung-RADS) on nodules detected by baseline CT screening.
methodsWe performed a secondary analysis of the Korean Lung Cancer Screening Project (K-LUCAS; ClinicalTrials.gov , NCT03394703), a nationwide, multicenter, prospective cohort study. From April 2017 to December 2018, low-dose CT screening was performed on high-risk subjects. Discrimination and calibration of Brock models 2a and 2b (i.e., full model without and with spiculation, respectively) were assessed, and discrimination was compared with that of Lung-RADS, which utilized subjective assessment categories 2b (b stands for benign) and 4X.
resultsOf the 13,150 subjects, 4578 were eligible (median age 62 years; 4458 men; 9929 nodules including 40 lung cancers). Areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve were 0.96 (IQR 0.92-0.99) for Brock model 2a, 0.96 (IQR 0.92-0.99) for Brock model 2b, and 0.95 (IQR 0.91-0.99) for Lung-RADS (p = 0.32 and p = 0.34, respectively). At an equivalent cutoff of 5%, Brock model 2b (sensitivity 87.5% [35/40]; specificity 93.6% [9259/9889]; positive predictive value [PPV] 5.3% [35/665]; negative predictive value [NPV] 99.9% [9259/9264]) and Lung-RADS (sensitivity 87.5% [35/40]; specificity 93.3% [9222/9889]; PPV 5.0% [35/702]; NPV 99.9% [9222/9227]) performed similarly well (all p > 0.05). The calibration performance of both Brock models 2a and 2b was poor (both p < 0.001).
conclusionsLung-RADS, when reinforced with visual assessment-based categories, has a similar diagnostic performance to the Brock model for baseline CT scans. KEY POINTS: • Brock model 2b and Lung CT Screening Reporting and Data System (Lung-RADS) demonstrated a similar discrimination performance for lung cancer in the baseline CT screening (areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve 0.96 vs. 0.95; p = 0.34). • When visual assessment-based categories were removed from Lung-RADS, specificity and positive predictive value were lower than those of Brock model 2b (p = 0.001 and p = 0.02, respectively). • The Brock model showed poor calibration (p < 0.001).
Indexed as
Identifiers
33241512What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.