In lung cancer, early detection and diagnosis is of paramount importance. In 2011 the National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) demonstrated the effectiveness of computed tomography (CT) screening for lung cancer in reducing mortality, and results from other ongoing trials are expected to be published in the near future. A topic that has not been widely researched to date, however, is the cause for screening failure and missed lung cancers. In lung cancer screening with thoracic computed tomography (CT), there are some parallels but also dissimilarities concerning this issue. The ability of readers to detect lung nodules on CT has certainly been the subject of extensive investigation. In mainly research conditions, it has been shown that even experienced thoracic radiologists may demonstrate only moderate performance in nodule detection [3,4]. However, in contrast to the plain chest radiograph, much emphasis has also been placed on the issue of minimizing "overcalls" (i.e., false-positive nodules) in CT screening. The topic of false negatives in lung cancer screening has gained less attention, which is perhaps a reflection of its very high negative predictive value (>99 %) [5,6].In this issue of European Radiology, the publication by Scholten and colleagues [7] of the NELSON trial is one of the few recent CT lung cancer screening studies to report on the causes of missed lung cancers. In this study, 22 missed lung cancers are described, which were visible in retrospect on the previous screening thoracic CT. What is revealing is not that the majority of misses were due to errors of detection, but rather that in most, there was an "explanation" for the miss.For example, in 5/22 cases, the overlooked opacity manifested as a small endobronchial lesion, in 3/22 cases as mediastinal or hilar lymph nodes, and in 5/22 cases as thickening of a bulla wall. Only in 2/22 cases (both intra-parenchymal nodules) could no explanation be provided other than observational error.The concept of bulla wall thickening as a marker of lung cancer is worthy of discussion. The association between lung cancer and bullae has long been recognized on plain radiographs [8], and this phenomenon has also gained attention recently in CT studies [9]. However, malignant and benign opacities in areas of emphysema demonstrate considerable overlap in appearances [10], and so, how such opacities should be managed lacks consensus.A number of questions arise: what degree of bulla wall thickness should prompt early follow-up CT or further Related publication by Scholten and colleagues can be found at http://dx