- 1、原创力文档(book118)网站文档一经付费(服务费),不意味着购买了该文档的版权,仅供个人/单位学习、研究之用,不得用于商业用途,未经授权,严禁复制、发行、汇编、翻译或者网络传播等,侵权必究。。
- 2、本站所有内容均由合作方或网友上传,本站不对文档的完整性、权威性及其观点立场正确性做任何保证或承诺!文档内容仅供研究参考,付费前请自行鉴别。如您付费,意味着您自己接受本站规则且自行承担风险,本站不退款、不进行额外附加服务;查看《如何避免下载的几个坑》。如果您已付费下载过本站文档,您可以点击 这里二次下载。
- 3、如文档侵犯商业秘密、侵犯著作权、侵犯人身权等,请点击“版权申诉”(推荐),也可以打举报电话:400-050-0827(电话支持时间:9:00-18:30)。
- 4、该文档为VIP文档,如果想要下载,成为VIP会员后,下载免费。
- 5、成为VIP后,下载本文档将扣除1次下载权益。下载后,不支持退款、换文档。如有疑问请联系我们。
- 6、成为VIP后,您将拥有八大权益,权益包括:VIP文档下载权益、阅读免打扰、文档格式转换、高级专利检索、专属身份标志、高级客服、多端互通、版权登记。
- 7、VIP文档为合作方或网友上传,每下载1次, 网站将根据用户上传文档的质量评分、类型等,对文档贡献者给予高额补贴、流量扶持。如果你也想贡献VIP文档。上传文档
查看更多
Performance of Lung-RADS in the National Lung Screening Trial: A Retrospective AssessmentPerformance of Lung-RADS in the NLST
Background: Lung cancer screening with low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) has been recommended, based primarily on the results of the National Lung Screening Trial (NLST). The American College of Radiology recently released Lung-RADS, a classification system for LDCT lung cancer screening. Objective: To retrospectively apply the Lung-RADS criteria to the NLST.
Design: Secondary analysis of a group from a randomized trial.
Setting: 33 U.S. screening centers.
Patients: Participants were randomly assigned to the LDCT group of the
NLST, were aged 55 to 74 years, had at least a 30 -pack-year history of
smoking, and were current smokers or had quit within the past 15 years. Intervention: 3 annual LDCT lung cancer screenings.
Measurements: Lung-RADS classifications for LDCT screenings. Lung-RADS categories 1 to 2 constitute negative screening results, and categories 3 to 4 constitute positive results.
Results: Of 26 722 LDCT group participants, 26 455 received a baseline screen; 48 671 screenings were done after baseline. At baseline, the false-positive result rate (1 minus the specificity rate) for Lung-RADS was 12.8% (95% CI, 12.4% to 13.2%) versus 26.6% (CI, 26.1% to 27.1%) for the NLST; after baseline, the false-positive result rate was 5.3% (CI, 5.1% to 5.5%) for Lung-RADS versus 21.8% (CI, 21.4% to 22.2%) for the NLST. Baseline sensitivity was 84.9% (CI, 80.8% to 89.0%) for Lung-RADS compared with 93.5% (CI, 90.7% to 96.3%) for the NLST, and sensitivity after baseline was 78.6% (CI, 74.6% to 82.6%) for Lung-RADS versus 93.8% (CI, 91.4% to 96.1%) for the NLST.
Limitation: Lung-RADS criteria were applied retrospectively.
Conclusion: Lung-RADS may substantially reduce the false-positive result rate; however, sensitivity is also decreased. The effect of using Lung-RADS criteria in clinical practice must be carefully studied.
Primary Funding Sour
您可能关注的文档
最近下载
- 预埋管检验批整套.xlsx VIP
- 道路交通法规公路法.ppt VIP
- 小儿肠系膜淋巴结炎指南.ppt VIP
- 2025年海事两员从业资格考试(危险货物集装箱装箱现场检查员)历年题及答案.docx VIP
- 超星尔雅学习通《中国陶瓷鉴赏与器物陈设》章节测试答案.docx VIP
- 学校试卷印刷协议合同.docx VIP
- 易感基因介绍_培训课件.pptx VIP
- 在线网课学习课堂《成语与中国文化(复旦大学 )》单元测试考核答案.docx VIP
- 葡萄酒品鉴与侍酒服务:侍酒服务PPT教学课件.pptx VIP
- 2013-2022年安防设备行业比率、现金流、发展、盈利、经营、偿债能力均值.doc VIP
原创力文档


文档评论(0)