ArticlePloS one2022
Determination of the optimum definition of growth evaluation for indeterminate pulmonary nodules detected in lung cancer screening.
Article in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- A narrative review on CT-based evaluation and prediction of lung nodule growth: current status and future directions.Translational lung cancer research · 2026Review
- Correlation between CT growth patterns and invasiveness progression in neoplastic subcentimeter sub-solid nodules.Annals of medicine · 2025Article
- Growth assessment of pure ground-glass nodules on CT: comparison of density and size measurement methods.Journal of cancer research and clinical oncology · 2023Article
- Managing Persistent Subsolid Nodules in Lung Cancer: Education, Decision Making, and Impact of Interval Growth Patterns.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo determine the optimum definition of growth for indeterminate pulmonary nodules detected in lung cancer screening. MATERIALS AND
methodsIndividuals with indeterminate nodules as defined by volume of 50-500 mm3 (solid nodules) and solid component volume of 50-500 mm3 or average diameter of non-solid component ≥8 mm (part-solid nodules) on baseline lung cancer screening low-dose chest CT (LDCT) were included. The average diameters and volumes of the nodules were measured on baseline and follow-up LDCTs with semi-automated segmentation. Sensitivities and specificities for lung cancer diagnosis of nodule growth defined by a) percentage volume growth ≥25% (defined in the NELSON study); b) absolute diameter growth >1.5 mm (defined in the Lung-RADS version 1.1); and c) subjective decision by a radiologist were evaluated. Sensitivities and specificities of diagnostic referral based on various thresholds of volume doubling time (VDT) were also evaluated.
resultsAltogether, 115 nodules (one nodule per individual; 93 solid and 22 part-solid nodules; 105 men; median age, 68 years) were evaluated (median follow-up interval: 201 days; interquartile range: 127-371 days). Percentage volume growth ≥25% exhibited higher sensitivity but lower specificity than those of diametrical measurement compared to absolute diameter growth >1.5 mm (sensitivity, 69.2% vs. 42.3%, p = 0.023; specificity, 82.0% vs. 96.6%, p = 0.002). The radiologist had an equivalent sensitivity (53.9%; p = 0.289) but higher specificity (98.9%; p = 0.002) compared to those of volume growth, but did not differ from those of diameter growth (p>0.05 both in sensitivity and specificity). Compared to the VDT threshold of 600 days (sensitivity, 61.5%; specificity, 87.6%), VDT thresholds ≤200 and ≤300 days exhibited significantly lower sensitivity (30.8%, p = 0.013) and higher specificity (94.4%, p = 0.041), respectively.
conclusionGrowth evaluation of screening-detected indeterminate nodules with volumetric measurement exhibited higher sensitivity but lower specificity compared to diametric measurements.
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.