Tag: lung cancer

AI Spots Lung Nodules

Posted on by Brian Casey

A new study in Radiology on an AI algorithm for analyzing lung nodules on CT lung cancer screening exams shows that radiologists may be able to have their cake and eat it too: better identification of malignant nodules with lower false-positive rates. 

The rising utilization of low-dose CT screening is great news for clinicians (and eligible patients), but managing suspicious nodules remains a major challenge, as false-positive findings expose patients to unnecessary biopsies and costs.

  • False-positive rates have come down somewhat from the high rates seen in the big lung cancer screening clinical trials like NLST and NELSON, but there is still room for improvement.

Dutch researchers applied AI to the problem, developing a deep learning algorithm trained on 16.1k NLST nodules that produces a score from 0% to 100% based on a nodule’s likelihood of malignancy. 

  • They then tested the algorithm with baseline screening rounds of 4.1k patients from three datasets drawn from different lung cancer screening trials: NELSON, DLSCT in Denmark, and MILD in Italy.

The algorithm’s performance was compared to the Pan-Canadian Early Detection of Lung Cancer model, a widely used clinical guideline that uses patient characteristics like age and family history and nodule characteristics size and location to estimate risk.

Compared to PanCan, the deep learning algorithm…

  • Reduced false-positive findings sharply by classifying more benign cases as low risk (68% vs. 47%) when set at 100% sensitivity for cancers diagnosed within one year.
  • For all nodules, achieved comparable AUCs at one year (0.98 vs. 0.98), two years (0.96 vs. 0.94), and throughout screening (0.94 vs. 0.93).
  • For indeterminate nodules 5-15 mm, significantly outperformed PanCan at one year (0.95 vs. 0.91), two years (0.94 vs. 0.88), and throughout screening (0.91 vs. 0.86).

The model’s performance for indeterminate nodules is particularly intriguing, as these are challenging to manage due to their small size and can lead to unnecessary follow-up procedures.

The Takeaway

Using AI to differentiate malignant from benign nodules promises to make CT lung cancer screening more accurate and easier to perform than manual nodule classification methods – and should add to the exam’s growing momentum.

CT Lung Screening News from WCLC 2025

Posted on by Brian Casey

The World Conference on Lung Cancer wrapped up this week in Barcelona, and CT lung cancer screening was a highlighted topic, as it was at WCLC 2024 in San Diego.

The last year has seen significant global progress toward new population-based lung screening programs, and sessions at WCLC 2025 highlighted the advances being made… 

  • A screening program serving Kentucky and Indiana since 2013 has seen a 30-percentage-point decline in late-stage lung cancer diagnoses – over 3.5X faster than national trends – with far higher uptake than national averages (52% vs. 16%).
  • In the European 4-IN-THE-LUNG-RUN trial, AI had a negative predictive value similar to radiologists (98% vs. 97%) in analyzing 2.2k CT lung screen exams, indicating its potential as a first reader.
  • Another 4-IN-THE-LUNG-RUN study of 2.6k individuals revealed that AI had a 2.5% incidental findings rate, with none having acute consequences after a year.
  • The USPSTF’s 2021 guideline expansion may have reduced the number of at-risk individuals eligible for screening. A California analysis of 11.7k lung cancer patients found 8.8% fewer patients were eligible.
  • Researchers from Illinois found that basing screening eligibility on a 20-year smoking history rather than USPSTF 2021’s 20-pack-year threshold would capture more eligible individuals (70% vs. 65%), especially racial minorities.
  • A screening program at a VA healthcare system in Northern California achieved a 94% adherence rate for 3.9k military veterans, with 67% of cancers diagnosed at early stages.
  • U.S. military veterans had much higher screening rates (50% vs. 29%) in an analysis of 413.6k cancer survivors. Among women, 71% were up to date on mammography screening but only 25% were current for lung screens. 
  • Researchers used Qure.ai’s algorithm to detect malignant pulmonary nodules on 198k routine chest X-rays in a tuberculosis screening program.
  • Asian American women are at higher risk of lung cancer – even if they don’t smoke – and a session explored whether they should be screened.
  • A Stanford University program using electronic alerts to primary care physicians boosted screening compliance after one year (16% vs. 8.9%).
  • Attending lung screening didn’t make people feel they had a “license to smoke” in a U.K. study of 87.8k people.
  • Italian researchers tested Coreline Soft’s AVIEW AI solution as a first reader for screening.

The Takeaway

Findings from this week’s WCLC 2025 conference show both the challenges and opportunities in CT lung cancer screening. Researchers around the world are demonstrating that with hard work, dedication, and persistence, lung screening can become an effective, life-saving exam.

AI-Driven Lung Cancer Screening and Improving Patient Outcomes

Posted on by Partner Content

AI is reshaping clinical decision-making, optimizing resource allocation, and enhancing both patient outcomes and experience in CT lung cancer screening. Radiology providers are successfully integrating new AI software tools into hospital operations – supporting diagnostic accuracy and improving patient outcomes.

At the center of this trend is Coreline Soft’s FDA-cleared AVIEW LCS Plus, a 3-in-1 solution capable of detecting lung nodules, quantifying emphysema, and analyzing coronary artery calcification – all from a single low-dose CT scan. 

  • AVIEW LCS Plus is in use at Temple Health, a nationally recognized institution in the U.S. Northeast, where it has allowed providers to streamline clinical workflows from detection to follow-up, delivering measurable improvements in care and ROI.

Coreline Soft will co-host a strategic webinar with the Temple Lung Center on August 1 at 1:30 PM ET, focused on AI-powered lung cancer screening and the evolving paradigm of early detection for chest diseases.

The webinar will offer firsthand insight into how Temple Health is drawing attention as a model for integrating AI beyond diagnosis – transforming it into a scalable, patient-centered care strategy.

The discussion will focus on two main areas…

  • Real-world outcomes: How AI improved diagnostic efficiency, early detection, and comorbidity detection.
  • A deep dive into the precision technology of the AVIEW LCS Plus platform.

AI like Coreline’s is not replacing clinical judgment, but reinforcing it, enhancing radiologists’ ability to detect, triage, and treat lung disease earlier and more efficiently, Criner believes. 

  • The webinar is open to pulmonologists, radiologists, cardiologists, respiratory-adjacent professionals, hospital stakeholders and administrators, and primary care providers across the U.S. and Canada. Interested participants can register for free in advance via the official registration link. 

The Takeaway

AI solutions like Coreline Soft’s AVIEW LCS Plus platform are having a real-world impact on healthcare providers as they roll out CT lung cancer screening programs. Sign up to learn more on August 1.

CT Lung Screening Chats Pay Off

Posted on by Brian Casey

Patients who talked about CT lung cancer screening with their doctors were more likely to actually follow through on getting scanned. That’s according to a study this week in CHEST that offers support for shared decision making – a process that some screening proponents have criticized.

The U.S. continues to see disappointing compliance rates for CT lung cancer screening, over 10 years after the USPSTF recommended the exam.

  • Some lung screening proponents suggest that one barrier to screening is a CMS rule requiring a shared decision-making session between patients and doctors before the first scan is performed – a requirement that’s not in place for any of the other major cancer screening tests.

But the new study indicates that shared decision making could actually work to boost compliance. 

  • Researchers from the Harvey L. Neiman Health Policy Institute led by first author YoonKyung Chung, PhD, examined lung screening compliance rates for 22.6k people who had their first CT exam between 2016 and 2019.

Researchers looked at differences in annual follow-up lung screening rates between people who got shared decision-making sessions and those who didn’t, finding… 

  • Only 11% of study participants had a session before their first scan.
  • One year after the initial scan, those who participated in sessions were 27% more likely to get a follow-up exam.
  • Four years later, the compliance rate rose to 33%. 

If CMS requires shared decision-making sessions for reimbursement, why are they occurring so infrequently? 

  • The authors called this phenomenon “puzzling,” and suggested it’s because CMS is not enforcing the mandate through tools like claims denial. CMS could also boost utilization by providing higher reimbursement for the discussions.

The Takeaway

The new findings suggest that shared decision making should be viewed as an opportunity rather than a barrier to convincing patients of CT lung cancer screening’s value. The results track with other studies showing that a high-touch approach with tools like patient navigators can work.

How to Improve CT Lung Screening Outcomes

Posted on by Brian Casey

Getting patients to attend cancer screening exams is one of the biggest challenges in healthcare. But a new study in JAMA Network Open should provide motivation, showing that people who showed up for annual CT lung cancer screening exams had better clinical outcomes than those who didn’t. 

Low cancer screening adherence frustrates clinicians and healthcare policy experts alike, but nowhere is the situation as dire as in CT lung cancer screening.

  • U.S. lung screening adherence rates languished in the single digits for years after the exam was approved by the USPSTF, and while there has been some recent improvement, screening rates are nowhere near those of more established exams like mammography. 

At the same time, statistical modeling studies (and common sense) suggest that complying with screening would reduce lung cancer mortality. 

  • So researchers from multiple institutions in the U.S. and Canada decided to track adherence to a real-world CT lung screening program consisting of a baseline scan and then two follow-up scans roughly a year apart. 

In all, 10.2k eligible adults were screened from 2015 to 2018, with researchers finding …

  • Screening adherence rates fell from the first follow-up round to the second (61% to 51%).
  • People who attended the first follow-up round were more likely to attend the second (67% vs. 25%). 
  • Patients who completed both screening rounds had higher lung cancer diagnosis rates (1% vs. 0.2%).
  • Patients who attended the second round and got a lung cancer diagnosis were more likely to have early-stage disease (73% vs. 25%) and less likely to have late-stage disease (21% vs. 58%). 

In analyzing the results, researchers said the drop-off in adherence rates between the first and second follow-up screening rounds represented an opportunity to reach out to people who missed the first round and get them to the second.

  • This position dovetails with other recent research underscoring the importance of patient navigators in guiding eligible people to lung cancer screening. 

The Takeaway

So as radiology and other disciplines look to build on the momentum behind CT lung cancer screening, what’s the key to success in improving patient outcomes? Sometimes, it’s just getting people to show up. 

Are CT Lung Screening Patients Sicker?

Posted on by Brian Casey

Amid the rush of enthusiasm for CT lung cancer screening, a new study published in JAMA Health Forum offers a cautionary note. Researchers found that in the real world, people eligible for lung screening were sicker than those in research studies, and thus may not enjoy screening’s benefits to the same extent. 

Support for CT lung cancer screening is based on randomized controlled trials published in 2011 (NLST) and NELSON (2020) that showed screening reduced lung cancer mortality among high-risk individuals who typically had long smoking histories. 

  • The studies have spurred momentum for large-scale CT lung cancer screening programs, with a number of European and Asian countries starting national initiatives. 

But how generalizable are these results? Researchers noted that people who participated in the NLST study tended to be younger and healthier than individuals who qualify for screening in the real world. 

  • Co-morbidities like COPD, diabetes, and heart disease, as well as age and racial background, can have an impact on survival after treatment for lung cancer, and thus could reduce screening’s risk/benefit calculation. 

In the new Personalized Lung Cancer Screening study, researchers analyzed the comorbidity profiles of 31.8k people who got screened between 2016 and 2021 in California, Florida, and South Carolina. 

  • They noted that their PLuS study cohort was more diverse in terms of age, race, and ethnicity than that used in NLST, and potentially had more comorbid conditions. 

In analyzing their population, PLuS researchers found that compared to NLST participants, people screened in their real-world programs had …

  • Higher rates of COPD (33% vs. 18%).
  • Higher rates of diabetes (25% vs. 9.7%).
  • Higher rates of heart disease (16% vs. 13%).
  • Were more likely to be aged 70 and over (25% vs. 8.8%).
  • Had high scores on various metrics of comorbidity and frailty. 

Older, sicker patients are less likely to have good health outcomes after lung cancer surgery, and might also succumb to conditions like COPD, diabetes, and heart disease before lung cancer, which could also reduce lung screening’s benefits.

The Takeaway

While the new findings aren’t likely to seriously dampen CT lung cancer screening’s growing momentum, they do illustrate a point that should always be kept in mind when looking at research results: in the real world, your mileage may vary. 

CT Lung Screening’s Weak Link

Posted on by Brian Casey

CT lung cancer screening rates in the U.S. remain abysmally low, over a decade after the exam was recommended. Is part of lung screening’s problem its reliance on provider referrals? A new research letter in JAMA Network Open examines this question. 

Unlike breast screening, in which eligible women are able to self-refer themselves for exams, CT lung screening revolves around provider referrals to start the process. 

  • CMS requires a shared decision-making session that results in a written order from a practitioner for a CT lung screening exam in order to pay for screening through Medicare and Medicaid. 

When CMS created the rules in 2015, provider referrals and shared decision-making were seen as ways to get patients involved in their own care by making choices in coordination with their caregivers.

  • But many are starting to see the requirements as a barrier, especially given low CT lung screening rates in the U.S.

In the new article, researchers investigated how easy it would be for an eligible individual to secure a CT lung screening appointment by just calling hospitals – without a provider referral. 

  • They note that one-third of Americans don’t have primary care clinicians, and are often told to call hospitals directly to set up appointments.

So they did just that, placing phone calls to 527 hospitals asking to arrange CT lung screening appointments, finding …

  • 317 calls (60%) failed because the caller did not have a primary care provider’s order.
  • Only 51 hospitals (9.7%) were able to connect callers to any component of a lung cancer screening process. 

The study authors note that the provider referral requirement isn’t the only thing holding CT lung cancer screening back, as even patients with primary care providers aren’t getting screened, and managing nodule follow-up can also be challenging. 

  • But Medicare’s cumbersome reimbursement rules certainly don’t help bring new people into the fold.

The Takeaway

Given CT lung cancer screening’s undisputed life-saving value, there’s no reason to put unnecessary barriers in its way. The provider referral and shared decision-making requirements are lung screening’s weak link to securing greater adoption, and CMS should rescind them to put CT lung cancer screening on the path to greater adoption.

Combo CT Screening Detects More Disease

Posted on by Brian Casey

A CT lung cancer screening program that also offered abdominal non-contrast CT scans detected a large number of abnormalities outside the lung in a population of people with smoking histories. The combined approach could offer a more efficient way to detect multiple pathologies in a single patient visit. 

CT lung cancer screening is gaining momentum globally, but clinicians and researchers continue to look for ways to make it more valuable. 

  • That’s a good thing, because smoking is a risk factor not just for lung cancer, but also other pathologies like abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) – so why not screen for those at the same time?

In a paper in European Urology, U.K. researchers describe their Yorkshire Kidney Screening Trial (YKST), which sought to detect kidney cancer by piggybacking on the county’s existing CT lung cancer screening program. 

  • Abdominal non-contrast CT exams were offered at the same time as thoracic CT lung screening scans to high-risk people who met the lung program’s screening criteria, namely aged 50-85 and more than 30 pack-years of smoking history. 

In all, 4k people accepted the offer to get additional abdominal CT scans, which had the following findings …

  • 64% of patients had normal findings, while another 20% had images that required additional review but no further action.
  • 5.3% had a new serious finding.
  • Serious findings were broken down as follows: renal stones ≥ 5 mm (3%), AAA (1.5%), renal mass/complex cysts (0.62%), kidney cancers (0.25%), and other cancers (0.25%).
  • It took 13 minutes of additional time to perform the abdominal CT scan.

Researchers said the prevalence of additional disease in YKST was within the range of other U.K. screening programs, such as for colorectal cancer (0.16-0.61%) and breast cancer (0.92%). 

  • The high prevalence of AAA was “unexpected,” especially since many AAA cases were found in people who aren’t covered by existing AAA screening programs. 

The Takeaway

As with recent research combining CT lung screening with coronary artery calcium (CAC) scoring, the new study shows that lung screening offers an opportunity to screen for more than just lung cancer. By detecting additional disease, combo screening has the potential to flip the script when it comes to screening’s cost-benefit ratio. 

When Follow-Up Falls Short for Lung Nodules

Posted on by Brian Casey

Making sure suspicious imaging findings are followed up appropriately is a key element in providing quality patient care. But a new study found that some suspicious findings aren’t being adequately tracked, especially when it comes to lung nodules. 

Lung nodules are commonly detected on chest CT exams, and are often found incidentally, when patients are being examined for other reasons. 

  • While most smaller nodules don’t represent a threat to patients, it’s important to work up the ones that could be clinically significant. 

In the new paper, Japanese researchers studied 10.5k initial chest CT reports at their institution from 2020 to 2023. 

  • They developed a natural language processing algorithm that analyzed free-text reports to see which ones recommended follow-up. 

They determined that 1.5k reports (14%) recommended additional imaging with exams like chest CT or PET/CT; they then calculated whether these follow-up exams were conducted within 400 days of the initial exam. Further analysis indicated … 

  • For 36% of exams (543) researchers could not confirm that follow-up imaging had taken place.
  • In a random sample of 42 of these patients, 40.5% (17) were not followed up appropriately. 
  • For these cases, either no imaging was documented or no reason was given for the lack of follow-up.

The researchers clarified that they found no evidence of false negatives (missed cancers), as that wasn’t a goal of their study. 

The Takeaway

The new findings indicate both the challenge and opportunity of follow-up management. While radiology must do better in tracking patients with suspicious findings, the study shows that software-based solutions could help, especially those that are automated to scan radiology reports and alert radiologists to cases that need their attention.

Two-for-One CT Screening Hits the Road

Posted on by Brian Casey

A new study takes CT screening on the road in rural Appalachia, showing how a mobile van outfitted with a CT scanner can screen at-risk individuals for both lung cancer and cardiovascular disease in one visit. 

Recent studies have demonstrated the effectiveness of CT lung cancer screening not only among the overall population, but particularly among disadvantaged communities with lower healthcare access. 

  • Such limited access is common in rural areas of Appalachia, which also have some of the highest rates of smoking and cardiovascular disease in the U.S.

Researchers from West Virginia University wanted to tackle two challenges at once with LUCAS, a mobile van outfitted with a CT scanner for lung cancer screening. 

  • They noted that CT lung scans can also be used to acquire data on coronary artery calcium (CAC), a known risk factor for cardiovascular disease. 

LUCAS was launched in September 2021, so WVU researchers analyzed data acquired for 526 low-dose CT screenings of high-risk people conducted through December 2022. 

  • They used the CT lung scans to calculate CAC scores based on Agatson criteria, in which a score of 101-400 indicates moderate risk of cardiovascular disease and >400 is classified as high risk; individuals with scores ≥100 should be referred to aspirin or statin therapy. 

They found that LUCAS scans revealed … 

  • Over 54% of patients had coronary calcification on LDCT scans
  • 31% of patients had CAC scores ≥100 
  • 14% had CAC scores ≥400
  • Elevated CAC scores correlated with lung cancer risk based on Lung-RADS scores as well as smoking history based on pack-years
  • Of the patients with CAC scores ≥1 and who weren’t already on statin or aspirin therapy, 6.2% started statins and 3.3% started aspirin

Despite the firm link between CAC scores and lung cancer risk, the researchers expressed disappointment that so few patients started prevention therapy like statins or aspirin after their exams.

  • Indeed, researchers noted that few patients from the study got additional cardiac testing or follow-up referrals for cardiovascular prevention after their screenings. 

The Takeaway

The new study not only confirms recent research showing that opportunistic screening can enhance the value of CT lung cancer scans, but also the role that lung exams can play in reducing healthcare disparities. On the down side, it shows that all the screening in the world won’t make a difference if patients don’t get appropriate follow-up. 

Get every issue of The Imaging Wire, delivered right to your inbox.

This content is exclusive to subscribers

Log in or join by entering your email below.

Completely free. Every Monday and Thursday