Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33241512›Full record

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.

Hyungjin Kim, Hyae Young Kim, Jin Mo Goo, Yeol Kim

Registry-linked trialAbstract readMulticenter Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing 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.

NCT03394703 unknown statusnot on this map

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

TypeobservationalSponsorNational Cancer Center, KoreaRan2017 to 2018Enrolled8,000ConditionsLung Cancer
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
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

4 authors.

Hyungjin KimDepartment of Radiology, Seoul National University Hospital, 101, Daehak-ro, Jongno-gu, Seoul, 03080, South Korea.
Hyae Young KimDepartment of Diagnostic Radiology, National Cancer Center, 323, Ilsan-ro, Ilsandong-gu, Goyang, 10408, South Korea. radhykim@ncc.re.kr.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5284-4403
Jin Mo GooDepartment of Radiology, Seoul National University Hospital, 101, Daehak-ro, Jongno-gu, Seoul, 03080, South Korea.
Yeol KimCancer Early Detection Branch, National Cancer Control Institute, National Cancer Center, 323, Ilsan-ro, Ilsandong-gu, Goyang, 10408, South Korea.

Funding

Ministry of Health and Welfare, Republic of Korea 1520230Ministry of Health and Welfare, Republic of Korea 1720310Ministry of Health and Welfare, Republic of Korea 1760810-1
6 · The paper itself

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

Lung NeoplasmsEarly Detection of CancerHumansLungMaleMiddle AgedProspective StudiesRepublic of KoreaTomography, X-Ray ComputedDiagnostic screening programsEarly detection of cancerLung neoplasmsMultidetector computed tomographyStatistical models

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

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.