Table 5.
Reported false positive rates for CT scans for lung cancer.
| Reported false positives as % | Remarks | Source |
|---|---|---|
| 96.4 | National Lung Screening Trial Research Team, p. 399 | National Lung Screening Trial Research Team (2011) |
| 96.1 | Study also reports 90% sensitivity | Swensen et al. (2003) |
| 95.5 | 106 false positives among 111 with nodules >0.5 cm | Tiitola et al. (2002) |
| 92.9–96.0 | Rates depended on nodule size, p. 260. | Swensen et al. (2005) |
| 86.6–96.4 | Rates depend upon assumed nodule size from 5.0 to 9.0 mm | Henschke et al. (2013) |
| 94.6 | Based on 14 detected cancers among 259 patients with abnormal CT scans | McWilliams et al. (2003) |
| 94.1 | From Table 2, 1773 false positives among 1883 nodules detected | Mahadevia et al. (2003) |
| 93 | Based on 8 lung cancers among 114 subjects with nodules >5 mm | Novello et al. (2005) |
| 92.6 | Based on 22 lung cancers among 298 patients with nodules | Pastorino et al. (2003) |
| 92.1 | Based on 22 cancers in 279 with suspicious nodules | Sone et al. (2001) |
| 88.5–97 | From Table 3, rate dependent upon risk | Kovalchik et al. (2013) |
| 87.6 | Based on 29 malignancies among 233 positive results | Henschke et al. (2002) |
| 75 | Percent of patients with non-calcified nodules on CT | Manos (2013) |
| 73.4 | Based on 163 benign nodules among 222 evaluated by thin section CT | Li et al. (2004) |
| >70 | Reported value derived from Mayo clinic and ELCAP trials | Patz et al. (2004) |
| 62.1 | Based on 18 false positives among 29 subjects; for nodules >10 mm | Diedrerich et al. (2002) |
| 43.75 | Based on 36 confirmed lung cancer cases among 64 patients | Nawa et al. (2002) |
| 21–33 | Rates depend upon number of tests, p. 509. Of participants with a false-positive CT scan, 7% had an unnecessary invasive procedure and 2% had major surgery for benign disease. | Croswell et al. (2010) |
| 19 | p. 119 | Gohagan et al. (2004) |
| 7.9 | p. 612. Includes multi-stage process with classification of nodules by size and calcification with follow-up. | Pedersen et al. (2009), Saghir et al. (2012) |
| 7.9 M/5.6 F | Sensitivity reported to range between 84.6% W to 90.6% M | Toyoda et al. (2008) |
| 1.7 | Sensitivity reported at 94.6%, based on Volume CT scanning | van Klaveren et al. (2009) |