Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40593169›Full record

ReviewEuropean radiology2026

Aggressiveness-guided nodule management for lung cancer screening in Europe-justification for follow-up intervals and definition of growth.

Mathias Prokop, Cornelia Schaefer-Prokop, Colin Jacobs, Annemiek Snoeckx, Jürgen Biederer, Thomas Frauenfelder, Fergus Gleeson, Hans-Ulrich Kauczor, Anagha P Parkar, Rozemarijn Vliegenthart and 3 more

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in European radiology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Guideline
  2. Article
  3. Over- and underscreening for lung cancer.Translational lung cancer research · 2026
    Review
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. MRI for Lung Cancer Management: Any Closer to Clinical Application?Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI · 2026
    Review
  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

13 authors.

Mathias ProkopDepartment of Medical Imaging, Radboud University Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands. Mathias.prokop@radboudumc.nl.
Cornelia Schaefer-ProkopDepartment of Medical Imaging, Radboud University Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Colin JacobsDepartment of Medical Imaging, Radboud University Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Annemiek SnoeckxDepartment of Radiology, Antwerp University Hospital, Edegem, Belgium. Annemiek.snoeckx@uza.be.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2101-2783
Jürgen BiedererDepartment of Biomedical Imaging and Image-Guided Therapy, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna General Hospital, Vienna, Austria.
Thomas FrauenfelderInstitute of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital Zurich, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Fergus GleesonDepartment of Oncology, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Hans-Ulrich KauczorDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany.
Anagha P ParkarDepartment of Radiology, Haraldsplass Deaconess Hospital, Bergen, Norway.
Rozemarijn VliegenthartDepartment of Radiology, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Marie-Pierre RevelDepartment of Radiology, Cochin Hospital, Université Paris Cité, Paris, France.
Mario SilvaScienze Radiologiche, Department of Medicine and Surgery (DiMeC), University of Parma, Parma, Italy.
Helmut ProschDepartment of Biomedical Imaging and Image-Guided Therapy, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna General Hospital, Vienna, Austria.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The European Society of Thoracic Imaging (ESTI) nodule management recommendation for lung cancer screening with low-dose CT builds on existing nodule management guidelines but puts a stronger focus on lesion aggressiveness and measurement error. Key objectives included finding a compromise between the overall number of follow-up examinations, avoiding a major stage shift, and reducing the risk for overtreatment. Nodule management categories at baseline are chosen depending on the size of a solid nodule or the solid component of a subsolid or cystic nodule, with suspicious morphology upgrading risk to the next higher category. Higher risk categories mandate shorter follow-up times or diagnostic workup. Volume is the preferred size measure, with diameter measurements as a fallback if segmentation for volumetry is inaccurate at visual control. Nodule aggressiveness at follow-up is estimated from growth rate, calculated as volume doubling time (VDT), or yearly diameter change. Calculation of growth rate, however, is strongly affected by measurement variability, with large error margins for short follow-up and slower growing lesions. Growth thresholds were therefore set so that rapidly growing lesions can be identified while still small, while unnecessary workups for benign or slow-growing lesions could be kept low. New lesions that are retrospectively visible on earlier scans are managed according to their growth rate. New nodules not visible on earlier scans are followed after 3 months if they have a volume of ≥ 30 mm

Indexed as

Early Detection of CancerLung NeoplasmsMultiple Pulmonary NodulesSolitary Pulmonary NoduleTomography, X-Ray ComputedEuropeFollow-Up StudiesHumansArtificial intelligenceLow-dose computed tomographyLung cancerPulmonary noduleScreening programs (Diagnostic)

Identifiers

PMID40593169
PMCPMC12712097

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.