Table 5.
Nodule Detection in CT Screening
| Study | Number of Participants Screened |
% Compliance from Randomization/ Enrollment |
Round of Screening a |
% Participants with Non Calcified Lung Nodules Over Study Threshold b (n) |
% Participants with Lung Cancer Nodules (n) |
% Participants with Benign Nodules (n) |
% Nodules not Lung Cancer |
% of Participants Diagnosed with Lung Cancer Over Entire Study Period c |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| LDCT versus Usual Care (no screening) | ||||||||
| NELSON 2009 18 | 7,557 | 95% | Baseline | 21% (1570) | 0.9% (70) | 20% (1500) | 96% (1500) | 1.6% (124) |
| 7,289 | 92% | Year 1 | 8% (570) | 0.7% (54) | 7% (516) | 91% (516) | ||
| DLCST 2009 19,38 | 2,047 | 100% | Baseline | 9% (179) | 0.8% (17) | 8% (162) | 91% (162) | 3.4% (70) |
| 1,976 | 96% | Year 1 | - | 0.6% (11) | - | - | ||
| 1,944 | 95% | Year 2 | - | 0.7% (13) | - | - | ||
| ITALUNG 2009 20 | 1,406 | 87% | Baseline | 30% (426) | 1.5% (20) | 29% (406) | 95% (406) | 1.5% (20) |
| DANTE 2009 21 | 1,276 | 91% | Baseline | 18% (226) | 3.7% (47) | 14% (179) | 79% (179) | 4.7% (60) |
| Garg 2002 16 | 92 | 100% | Baseline | 3% (3) | 2.2% (2) | 1% (1) | 33% (1) | 2.2% (2) |
| LDCT versus Chest X-Ray | ||||||||
| NLST 2011 22,65 | 26,309 | 98% | Baseline | 27% (7191) | 1.0% (270) | 26% (6921) | 96% (6921) | 4.0% (1060) |
| 24,715 | 92% | Year 1 | 28% (6901) | 0.6% (168) | 27% (6733) | 98% (6733) | ||
| 24,102 | 90% | Year 2 | 17% (4054) | 0.9% (211) | 16% (3843) | 95% (3843) | ||
| LSS 2005 23,66 | 1,629 | 96% | Baseline | 19% (316) | 1.8% (30) | 18% (286) | 91% (286) | 2.5% (40) |
| 1,398 | 86% | Year 1 | 26% (360) | 0.6% (8) | 25% (352) | 98% (352) | ||
| Depiscan 2007 24 | 336 | 87% | Baseline | 24% (81) | 2.4% (7) | 22% (74) | 91% (74) | 2.4% (8) |
| Cohort Studies of LDCT | ||||||||
| Veronesi 2008 25, 67 | 5,201 d | 100% | Baseline | 11% (560) | 1.1% (54) | 10% (506) | 90% (506) | 1.8% (92) |
| 4821 | 93% | Year 1 | 10% (500) | 0.4% (19) | 10% (481) | 96% (481) | ||
| Wilson 2008 26 | 3,642 | 97% | Baseline | 41% (1477) | 1.5% (53) | 39% (1424) | 96% (1424) | 2.2% (80) |
| 3,423 | 89% | Year 1 | 42% (1450) | 0.7% (24) | 42% (1426) | 98% (1426) | ||
| Menezes 2010 27 | 3,352 d | 100% | Baseline | 18% (600) | 1.3% (44) | 17% (556) | 93% (556) | 1.9% (65) |
| 2,686 | 80% | Year 1 | 10% (259) | 0.4% (10) | 9% (249) | 96% (249) | ||
| 669 | 20% | Year 2 | 11% (70) | 0.9% (6) | 10% (64) | 91% (64) | ||
| Sobue 2002 28 | 1,611 | 96% | Baseline | 12% (186) | 0.9% (14) | 11% (172) | 93% (172) | 2.2% (36) |
| 1,180 | 70% | Year 0.5 e | 7% (83) | 0.3% (3) | 7% (80) f | 96% (80) | ||
| 891 | 53% | Year 1e | 7% (60) | 0.6% (5) | 6% (55) f | 92% (55) | ||
| Swenson 2005 68,69 | 1,520 | 100% | Baseline | 51% (780) | 2% (31) | 49% (749) | 96% (749) | 4.5% (68) |
| 1,464 | 97% | Year 1 | 13% (191) | 0.2% (3) | 13% (188) | 98% (188) | ||
| NR | NR | Year 2 | - | - | - | - | ||
| Pastorino 2003 30 | 1,035 | 100% | Baseline | 19% (199) | 1.1% (11) | 18% (188) | 95% (188) | 2.1% (22) |
| 996 | 96% | Year 1 | 10% (99) | 1.1% (11) | 9% (88) | 89% (88) | ||
| Henschke 2001 31,70 | 1,000 | 100% | Baseline | 23% (233) | 2.7% (27) | 21% (206) | 88% (206) | 3.6% g (36) |
| 841 | 84% | Year 1 | 3% (30) g | 0.6% (7) g | 2% (23) g | 77% (23) | ||
| 343 | 34% | Year 2 | ||||||
| Bastarrika 2005 32 | 911 d | 100% | Baseline | 14% (131) | 1.3% (12) | 13% (119) | 91% (119) | 1.5% (14) |
| 424 | 47% | Year 1 | - | 0.5% (2) | - | - | ||
| Diederich 2004 33,71, 72 | 817 | 100% | Baseline | 46% (378) | 1.3% (11) | 45% (367) | 97% (367) | 1.8% (15) |
| 668 | 82% | Year 1 | 11% (73) | - | - | - | ||
| 549 | 67% | Year 2 | 5% (25) | - | - | - | ||
| Novello 2005 34 | 519 | 99% | Baseline | 22% (114) | 1% (5) | 21% (109) | 96% (109) | 2.3% (12) |
| NR | NR | Year 1 | 5% (26) | 0.6% (3) | 5% (23) | 88% (23) | ||
| NR | NR | Year 2 | 5% (16) | 0.6%(3) | 3% (13) | 81% (13) | ||
| Callol 2007 35 | 466 | 97% | Baseline | 21% (98) | 0.2% (1) | 21% (97) | 98% (97) | 1.1% (5) |
| 406 | 84% | Year 2 h | 2% (9) | 1% (4) | 1% (5) | 56% (5) | ||
| MacRedmond 2006 36, 73 | 449 | 100% | Baseline | - | 0.4% (2) | - | - | 1.3% (6) |
| 413 | 92% | Year 1 | - | 0.7% (3) | - | - | ||
| Picozzi 2005 37 | 60 | 100% | Baseline | 33% (20) | 1.7% (1) | 32% (19) | 95% (19) | 3.3% (2) |
| 45 | 75% | Year 1 | 18% (8) | 2.2% (1) | 16% (7) | 88% (7) | ||
| 42 | 70% | Year 2 | 12% (5) | 0% (0) | 12% (5) | 100% (5) | ||
Note: - = Not Reported.
The majority of studies do not present results beyond the 2nd repeat screening, please see Table 1 for information on the number of planned screens completed.
Data are reported according to the nodule size warranting imaging workup in each study reported in Tables 1 and 2.
Includes interval cancers and those detected by symptoms or other causes over multiple screens with the number screened at baseline as the denominator.
The total number of participants enrolled was not reported, only the total number scanned at baseline.
Scans were conducted twice per year
Reviewer calculation.
ELCAP reported cumulative nodule detection data for two followup rounds of screening. Total participants screened in both followup rounds of screening is used as the denominator.
The first repeat scan was conducted 2 years after the initial baseline scan.