Coronary artery calcium scoring in individuals at risk for coronary artery disease:current status and future perspectives

The aim of this review is to provide clinicians with an overview of the role of coronary artery calcium (CAC) scoring across the spectrum ranging from asymptomatic individuals to chronic chest pain patients. We will briefly introduce the technical background of CAC scoring, summarize the major guidelines per type of patient at risk and discuss latest research with respect to CAC. Finally, the reader should be able to determine when CAC scoring is indicated or may be of added value

Multi-Modality Imaging for Prevention of Coronary Artery Disease and Myocardial Infarction in the General Population:Ready for Prime Time?

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) remains a leading cause of death and disability worldwide. Acute myocardial infarction (AMI) causes irreversible myocardial damage, heart failure, life-threatening arrythmias and sudden cardiac death (SCD), and is a main driver of CVD mortality and morbidity. To control the forecasted increase in CVD burden for both the individual and society, improved strategies for the prevention of AMI and SCD are required. Current prevention of AMI and SCD is directed towards risk-modifying interventions, guided by risk assessment using clinical risk prediction scores (CRPSs) and the coronary artery calcium score (CACS). Early detection of more advanced coronary artery disease (CAD), beyond risk assessment by CRPSs or CACS, is a promising strategy to allow personalized treatment for the improved prevention of AMI and SCD in the general population. We review evidence for further testing, beyond CRPSs and CACS, and therapies focusing on promising targets, including subclinical obstructive CAD, high-risk plaques, and silent myocardial ischemia. We also evaluate the potential of multi-modality imaging to enhance the conduction of adequately powered trials to provide high-quality evidence on the impact of add-on tests and therapies in the prevention of AMI and SCD in asymptomatic individuals. To conclude, we discuss the occurrence of AMI and SCD in individuals currently estimated to be at "low-risk" by the current strategy based on CRPSs, and methods to improve prevention of AMI and SCD in this "low-risk" population

New Fissure-Attached Nodules in Lung Cancer Screening:A Brief Report From The NELSON Study

Introduction: In incidence lung cancer screening rounds, new pulmonary nodules are regular findings. They have a higher lung cancer probability than baseline nodules. Previous studies have shown that baseline perifissural nodules (PFNs) represent benign lesions. Whether this is also the case for incident PFNs is unknown. This study evaluated newly detected nodules in the Dutch-Belgian randomized-controlled NELSON study with respect to incidence of fissure-attached nodules, their classification, and lung cancer probability. Methods: Within the NELSON trial, 7557 participants underwent baseline screening between April 2004 and December 2006. Participants with new nodules detected after baseline were included. Nodules were classified based on location and attachment. Fissure-attached nodules were re-evaluated to be classified as typical, atypical, or non-PFN by two radiologists without knowledge of participant lung cancer status. Results: One thousand four hundred eighty-four new nodules were detected in 949 participants (77.4% male, median age 59 years [interquartile range: 55–63 years]) in the second, third, and final NELSON screening round. Based on 2-year follow-up or pathology, 1393 nodules (93.8%) were benign. In total, 97 (6.5%) were fissure-attached, including 10 malignant nodules. None of the new fissure-attached malignant nodules was classified as typical or atypical PFN. Conclusions: In the NELSON study, 6.5% of incident lung nodules were fissure-attached. None of the lung cancers that originated from a new fissure-attached nodule in the incidence lung cancer screening rounds was classified as a typical or atypical PFN. Our results suggest that also in the case of a new PFN, it is highly unlikely that these PFNs will be diagnosed as lung cancer

Relationship between the number of new nodules and lung cancer probability in incidence screening rounds of CT lung cancer screening:The NELSON study

textabstractBackground: New nodules are regularly found after the baseline round of low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) lung cancer screening. The relationship between a participant's number of new nodules and lung cancer probability is unknown. Methods: Participants of the ongoing Dutch-Belgian Randomized Lung Cancer Screening (NELSON) Trial with (sub)solid nodules detected after baseline and registered as new by the NELSON radiologists were included. The correlation between a participant's new nodule count and the largest new nodule size was assessed using Spearman's rank correlation. To evaluate the new nodule count as predictor for new nodule lung cancer together with largest new nodule size, a multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed. Results: In total, 705 participants with 964 new nodules were included. In 48% (336/705) of participants no nodule had been found previously during baseline screening and in 22% (154/705) of participants >1 new nodule was detected (range 1–12 new nodules). Eventually, 9% (65/705) of the participants had lung cancer in a new nodule. In 100% (65/65) of participants with new nodule lung cancer, the lung cancer was the largest or only new nodule at initial detection. The new nodule lung cancer probability did not differ significantly between participants with 1 (10% [56/551], 95%CI 8–13%) or >1 new nodule (6% [9/154], 95%CI 3–11%, P =.116). An increased number of new nodules positively correlated with a participant's largest nodule size (P < 0.001, Spearman's rho 0.177). When adjusted for largest new nodule size, the new nodule count had a significant negative association with lung cancer (odds ratio 0.59, 0.37–0.95, P =.03). Conclusion: A participant's new nodule count alone only has limited association with lung cancer. However, a higher new nodule count correlates with an increased largest new nodule size, while the lung cancer probability remains equivalent, and may improve lung cancer risk prediction by size only

PHP48 COST SENSITIVENESS AND PHYSICIAN TREATMENT CHOICES

Objectives To explore the relationship between nodule count and lung cancer probability in baseline low-dose CT lung cancer screening. Materials and Methods Included were participants from the NELSON trial with at least one baseline nodule (3392 participants [45% of screen-group], 7258 nodules). We determined nodule count per participant. Malignancy was confirmed by histology. Nodules not diagnosed as screen-detected or interval cancer until the end of the fourth screening round were regarded as benign. We compared lung cancer probability per nodule count category. Results 1746 (51.5%) participants had one nodule, 800 (23.6%) had two nodules, 354 (10.4%) had three nodules, 191 (5.6%) had four nodules, and 301 (8.9%) had > 4 nodules. Lung cancer in a baseline nodule was diagnosed in 134 participants (139 cancers; 4.0%). Median nodule count in participants with only benign nodules was 1 (Inter-quartile range [IQR]: 1–2), and 2 (IQR 1–3) in participants with lung cancer (p = NS). At baseline, malignancy was detected mostly in the largest nodule (64/66 cancers). Lung cancer probability was 62/1746 (3.6%) in case a participant had one nodule, 33/800 (4.1%) for two nodules, 17/354 (4.8%) for three nodules, 12/191 (6.3%) for four nodules and 10/301 (3.3%) for > 4 nodules (p = NS). Conclusion In baseline lung cancer CT screening, half of participants with lung nodules have more than one nodule. Lung cancer probability does not significantly change with the number of nodules. Baseline nodule count will not help to differentiate between benign and malignant nodules. Each nodule found in lung cancer screening should be assessed separately independent of the presence of other nodules

Recommendations for implementing lung cancer screening with low-dose computed tomography in Europe

Lung cancer screening (LCS) with low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) was demonstrated in the National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) to reduce mortality from the disease. European mortality data has recently become available from the Nelson randomised controlled trial, which confirmed lung cancer mortality reductions by 26% in men and 39–61% in women. Recent studies in Europe and the USA also showed positive results in screening workers exposed to asbestos. All European experts attending the “Initiative for European Lung Screening (IELS)”—a large international group of physicians and other experts concerned with lung cancer—agreed that LDCT-LCS should be implemented in Europe. However, the economic impact of LDCT-LCS and guidelines for its effective and safe implementation still need to be formulated. To this purpose, the IELS was asked to prepare recommendations to implement LCS and examine outstanding issues. A subgroup carried out a comprehensive literature review on LDCT-LCS and presented findings at a meeting held in Milan in November 2018. The present recommendations reflect that consensus was reached