Observational studyChest2021
A Comparison of the PanCan Model and Lung-RADS to Assess Cancer Probability Among People With Screening-Detected, Solid Lung Nodules.
Observational study in Chest, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- OM-85, a Bacterial Lysate, Reduces Pulmonary Nodule Malignant Probability: A Retrospective Study.The clinical respiratory journal · 2025Article
- Lung Cancer Risk Prediction in Patients with Persistent Pulmonary Nodules Using the Brock Model and Sybil Model.Cancers · 2025Article
- Concordance-based Predictive Uncertainty (CPU)-Index: Proof-of-concept with application towards improved specificity of lung cancers on low dose screening CT.Artificial intelligence in medicine · 2025Article
- Active breathing coordinator combines with custom-designed puncture needle improves diagnostic accuracy of ≤20 mm pulmonary nodules under CT-guidance: a real world prospective study.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Article
- A clinical-information-free method for early diagnosis of lung cancer from the patients with pulmonary nodules based on backpropagation neural network model.Computational and structural biotechnology journal · 2024Article
- Proposal of Modified Lung-RADS in Assessing Pulmonary Nodules of Patients with Previous Malignancies: A Primary Study.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Article
- Quantitative parameters of enhanced dual-energy computed tomography for differentiating lung cancers from benign lesions in solid pulmonary nodules.Frontiers in oncology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe Pan-Canadian Early Detection of Lung Cancer (PanCan) risk model and the Lung CT Screening Reporting & Data System (Lung-RADS) estimate cancer probability for screening-detected nodules. The accuracy and agreement of these models require further study. RESEARCH QUESTION: What is the performance of the PanCan model and Lung-RADS to estimate the probability of cancer in screening-detected solid nodules? STUDY DESIGN AND
methodsWe analyzed data for newly identified, solid nodules detected on any screening round in the low-dose CT arm of the National Lung Screening Trial to assign a PanCan risk and Lung-RADS score. We compared PanCan risk with the corresponding Lung-RADS category according to the expected prevalence of cancer and examined accuracy using logistic regression and between-test agreement. We also analyzed baseline screen-detected nodules only, high (defined as ≥ 5% probability of cancer) vs low-risk nodules, "risk-gap" nodules with a 3% to 5% PanCan probability and no equivalent Lung-RADS category, and procedure use by model.
resultsParticipants with solid nodules (6,956) had a calculable PanCan risk and Lung-RADS score. PanCan accuracy by cancer probabilities < 1%, 1% to 2%, 5% to 15%, and > 15% was similar to corresponding Lung-RADS categories 2, 3, 4A, and 4B for any solid nodule (area under the curve, 0.84 vs 0.84; P = .95) and for nodules identified at baseline (area under the curve, 0.85 vs 0.84; P = .17). When dichotomized by high/low risk, PanCan and Lung-RADS were discordant (P < .001). Participants with risk-gap nodules (n = 543) were distributed across Lung-RADS categories 2 through 4; 41 (8%) had invasive procedures with 23 (4%) having unnecessary invasive procedure use for solid, benign nodules.
interpretationPanCan and Lung-RADS had similar overall accuracy for assessing cancer in screening-detected, solid lung nodules with evidence of discordance by subgroup. The existence of Lung-RADS category 4 nodules with a ≥ 3% to 5% PanCan risk may result in unnecessary procedures.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.