No abstract

No abstract

Purpose. The Early Lung Cancer Action Project (ELCAP) is designed to evaluate baseline and annual repeat screening by low radiation dose computed tomography (low-dose CT) in persons at high-risk for lung cancer.Methods. Since starting in 1993, the ELCAP has enrolled 1,000 asymptomatic persons, 60 years of age or older, with at least 10 pack-years (1 pack per day for 10 years, or 2 packs per day for 5 years) of cigarette smoking, no prior cancer, and medically fit to undergo thoracic surgery. After a structured interview and informed consent, baseline chest radiographs and low-dose CT were obtained on each subject. The diagnostic work-up of screen-detected noncalcified pulmonary nodules (NCN) was guided by ELCAP recommendations which included short-term highresolution CT follow-up for the smallest nodules.Baseline Radiology, New York Presbyterian Hospital-Weill Cornell Medical Center, 525 East 68th Street, New York, NY 10021, USA. Telephone: 212-746-2529; Fax: 212-746-2811 Received October 10, 2000 accepted for publication February 23, 2001. ©AlphaMed Press 1083-7159/2001 INTRODUCTIONIn the United States, the cure rate of lung cancer is a dismal 10%, and the 5-year survival rate is only slightly higher than the cure rate. In stage I lung cancer, by contrast, the 5-year survival rate upon resection is as high as 70%; but if left unresected, that rate is again of the order of a mere 10% [1,2]. While these rates imply that the cure rate of lung cancer can be substantially enhanced by screening and its associated earlier intervention, results of randomized trials have been interpreted as indicating that this is not the case [3].This paradox points to the possibility that the negative results of the randomized trials were a consequence of flaws in their design, execution and/or analysis. To quantify the

No abstract

No abstract

An extensive analysis has produced stage classification proposals for lung cancer with a robust degree of discriminatory consistency and general applicability. Nevertheless, external validation is encouraged to identify areas of strength and weakness; a sound validation should have discriminatory ability and be based on an independent data set of adequate size and sufficient follow-up with enough patients for each subgroup.

The purposes of this study were: to describe chest CT findings in normal non-smoking controls and cigarette smokers with and without COPD; to compare the prevalence of CT abnormalities with severity of COPD; and to evaluate concordance between visual and quantitative chest CT (QCT) scoring Methods Volumetric inspiratory and expiratory CT scans of 294 subjects, including normal non-smokers, smokers without COPD, and smokers with GOLD Stage I-IV COPD, were scored at a multi-reader workshop using a standardized worksheet. There were fifty-eight observers (33 pulmonologists, 25 radiologists); each scan was scored by 9–11 observers. Interobserver agreement was calculated using kappa statistic. Median score of visual observations was compared with QCT measurements. Results Interobserver agreement was moderate for the presence or absence of emphysema and for the presence of panlobular emphysema; fair for the presence of centrilobular, paraseptal, and bullous emphysema subtypes and for the presence of bronchial wall thickening; and poor for gas trapping, centrilobular nodularity, mosaic attenuation, and bronchial dilation. Agreement was similar for radiologists and pulmonologists. The prevalence on CT readings of most abnormalities (e.g. emphysema, bronchial wall thickening, mosaic attenuation, expiratory gas trapping) increased significantly with greater COPD severity, while the prevalence of centrilobular nodularity decreased. Concordances between visual scoring and quantitative scoring of emphysema, gas trapping and airway wall thickening were 75%, 87% and 65%, respectively. Conclusions Despite substantial inter-observer variation, visual assessment of chest CT scans in cigarette smokers provides information regarding lung disease severity; visual scoring may be complementary to quantitative evaluation.

No abstract