Diagnosis of solitary pulmonary nodules and patients follow-up strategy

Abstract

Solitary pulmonary nodule is the common clinical problem. Following the detection of solitary nodules practitioner first face the question of the probability of malignancy and the future strategy and tactics of the patient management. The report highlights the issues of differential diagnosis of solitary nodules and modern standards of management of these patients, including issues of their follow-up care. The importance of a multidisciplinary approach to this problem is emphasized. Strategy for the management of patients with solitary nodules include: (1) the computed tomography performance, its comparing with previous data; (2) an assessment of the margin, size, calcification type, solitary nodule type (solid, subsolid); (3) the risk of malignancy assessment. Further actions can be performed according to algorithms: nodule ≤8 mm; nodule >8 mm. According to screening tests for the early detection of lung cancer in smokers at high risk for development of malignant tumors, solitary nodules are found in 50% of cases. When choosing a strategy it is necessary to inform the patient about all the positives and negatives of follow-up care by means of computed tomography. Its main goal is to secure patient with benign nodules against unwanted invasive procedures, especially if there is no need for treatment. This advantage is put on one side of the scale, and on the second - the risk of delayed diagnosis of cancer, and excessive exposure to radiation. In light of the above all the patients with solitary nodules of undefined etiology should be referred to a specialized pulmonary center for multidisciplinary experts evaluating - pulmonologists, thoracic surgeons, pathologists and radiology specialists, which allows to develop the most optimal strategy for these patients.

Keywords

solitary pulmonary nodule / diagnosis / periodic health examination / lung cancer / computed tomography

References

[1] Bai R.J., Cheng X.G., Qu H. et al. Solitary pulmonary nodules: comparison of multi-slice computed tomography perfusion study with vascular endothelial growth factor and microvessel density. Chi. Med. J. 2009; 122 (5): 541-547.

[2] Balekian A.A., Silvestri G.A., Simkovich S.M. et al. Accuracy of clinicians and models for estimating the probability that a pulmonary nodule is malignan. Ann. Am. Thorac Soc. 2013; 10: 629-635. http://dx.doi.org/10.1513/AnnalsATS.201305-107OC

[3] Benjamin M.S., Drucker E.A., McLoud T.C., Shepard J.A. Small pulmonary nodules: detection at chest CT and outcome. Radiology. 2003; 226: 489-493. http://dx.doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2262010556

[4] Diederich S., Lenzen H. Radiation exposure associated with imaging of the chest: comparison of different radiographic and computed tomography techniques. Cancer. 2000; 89: 2457-2460. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/1097-0142(20001201)89:11+<2457::AID-CNCR22>3.0.CO;2-7

[5] Divisi D., Di Tommaso S., Di Leonardo G. et al. 18-fluorine fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography with computerized tomography versus computerized tomography alone for the management of solitary lung nodules with diameters inferior to 1.5 cm. Thorac Cardiovasc. Surg. 2010; 58: 422-426. http://dx.doi.org/10.1055/s-0030-1249945

[6] Fletcher J.W., Kymes S.M., Gould M. et al. A comparison of the diagnostic accuracy of 18F-FDG PET and CT in the characterization of solitary pulmonary nodules. J. Nucl. Med. 2008; 49:179-185. http://dx.doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.107.044990

[7] Gould M.K., Donington J., Lynch W.R. et al. Evaluation of individuals with pulmonary nodules: when is it lung cancer? Diagnosis and management of lung cancer, 3rd ed: American College of Chest Physicians evidence-based clinical practice guidelines. Chest. 2013; 143: e93S-e120S. http://dx.doi.org/10.1378/chest.12-2351

[8] Grgic A., Yüksel Y., Gröschel A. et al. Risk stratification of solitary pulmonary nodules by means of PET using (18)F-fluorodeoxyglucose and SUV quantification. Eur. J. Nucl. Med. Mol. Imaging. 2010; 37: 1087-1094. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00259-010-1387-3

[9] Gribetz A.R., Damsker B., Bottone E.J. et al. Solitary pulmonary nodules due to nontuberculous mycobacterial infection. Am. J. Med. 1981; 70: 39-43. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0002-9343(81)90409-5

[10] Hasegawa M., Sone S., Takashima S. et al. Growth rate of small lung cancers detected on mass CT screening. Br. J. Radiol. 2000; 73:1252-1259. http://dx.doi.org/10.1259/bjr.73.876.11205667

[11] Isbell J.M., Deppen S., Putnam J.B.Jr. et al. Existing general population models inaccurately predict lung cancer risk in patients referred for surgical evaluation. Ann. Thorac. Surg. 2011; 91: 227-233. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.athoracsur.2010.08.054

[12] Jennings S.G., Winer-Muram H.T., Tann M. et al. Distribution of stage I lung cancer growth rates determined with serial volumetric CT measurements. Radiology. 2006; 241: 554-563. http://dx.doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2412051185

[13] Kagna O., Solomonov A., Keidar Z. et al. The value of FDG-PET/CT in assessing single pulmonary nodules in patients at high risk of lung cancer. Eur. J. Nucl. Med. Mol. Imaging. 2009; 36: 997-1004. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00259-009-1061-9

[14] Ko J.P., Berman E.J., Kaur M. et al. Pulmonary Nodules: growth rate assessment in patients by using serial CT and three-dimensional volumetry. Radiology. 2012; 262: 662-671. http://dx.doi.org/10.1148/radiol.11100878

[15] Li Y., Yang Z.G., Chen T.W. et al. First-pass perfusion imaging of solitary pulmonary nodules with 64-detector row CT: comparison of perfusion parameters of malignant and benign lesions. Br. J. Radiol. 2010; 83: 785-790. http://dx.doi.org/10.1259/bjr/58020866

[16] Li Y., Yang Z.G., Chen T.W. et al. First-pass perfusion imaging of solitary pulmonary nodules with 64-detector row CT: comparison of perfusion parameters of malignant and benign lesions. Br. J. Radiol. 2010; 83 (993): 785-790. http://dx.doi.org/10.1259/bjr/58020866

[17] Lillington G.A., Caskey C.I. Evaluation and management of solitary and multiple pulmonary nodules. Clin. Chest Med. 1993; 14: 111-119.

[18] Lim H.J., Ahn S., Lee K.S. et al. Persistent pure ground-glass opacity lung nodules ≥10 mm in diameter at CT scan: histopathologic comparisons and prognostic implications. Chest. 2013; 144: 1291-1299. http://dx.doi.org/10.1378/chest.12-2987

[19] Maeda R., Isowa N., Onuma H. et al. The maximum standardized uptake values on positron emission tomography to predict the Noguchi classification and invasiveness in clinical stage IA adenocarcinoma measuring 2 cm or less in size. Interact. Cardiovasc. Thorac Surg. 2009; 9: 70-73. http://dx.doi.org/10.1510/icvts.2009.202580

[20] Marchevsky A.M., Changsri C., Gupta I. et al. Frozen section diagnoses of small pulmonary nodules: accuracy and clinical implications. Ann. Thorac Surg. 2004; 78: 1755-1759. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.athoracsur.2004.05.003

[21] Mayo J.R., Aldrich J., Muller N.L. Radiation exposure at chest CT: a statement of the Fleischner Society. Radiology. 2003; 228: 15-21. http://dx.doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2281020874

[22] McWilliams A., Tammemagi M.C., Mayo J.R. et al. Probability of cancer in pulmonary nodules detected on first screening CT. N. Engl. J. Med. 2013; 369: 910-919. http://dx.doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1214726

[23] Mehta H.J., Ravenel J.G., Shaftman S.R. et al. The utility of nodule volume in the context of malignancy prediction for small pulmonary nodules. Chest. 2014; 145: 464-472. http://dx.doi.org/10.1378/chest.13-0708

[24] Mizugaki H., Shinagawa N., Kanegae K. et al. Combining transbronchial biopsy using endobronchial ultrasonography with a guide sheath and positron emission tomography for the diagnosis of small peripheral pulmonary lesions. Lung Cancer. 2010; 68: 211-215. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lungcan.2009.06.004

[25] Mori T., Nomori H., Ikeda K. et al. Diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging for diagnosing malignant pulmonary nodules/masses: comparison with positron emission tomography. J. Thorac. Oncol. 2008; 3: 358-364. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/JTO.0b013e318168d9ed

[26] Mun M., Kohno T. Efficacy of thoracoscopic resection for multifocal bronchioloalveolar carcinoma showing pure ground-glass opacities of 20 mm or less in diameter. J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg. 2007; 134: 877-882. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jtcvs.2007.06.010

[27] Naidich D.P., Bankier A.A., MacMahon H. et al. Recommendations for the management of subsolid pulmonary nodules detected at CT: a statement from the Fleischner Society. Radiology. 2013; 266: 304-317. http://dx.doi.org/10.1148/radiol.12120628

[28] Nakata M., Sawada S., Saeki H. et al. Prospective study of thoracoscopic limited resection for ground-glass opacity selected by computed tomography. Ann. Thorac. Surg. 2003; 75: 1601-1606. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0003-4975(02)04815-4

[29] Nomori H., Watanabe K., Ohtsuka T. et al. Evaluation of F-18 fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) PET scanning for pulmonary nodules less than 3 cm in diameter, with special reference to the CT images. Lung Cancer. 2004; 45: 19-27. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lungcan.2004.01.009

[30] Nomori H., Watanabe K., Ohtsuka T. et al. Fluorine 18-tagged fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomographic scanning to predict lymph node metastasis, invasiveness, or both, in clinical T1 N0 M0 lung adenocarcinoma. J. Thorac Cardiovasc. Surg. 2004; 128: 396-401. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jtcvs.2004.03.020

[31] Ohba Y., Nomori H., Mori T. et al. Is diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging superior to positron emission tomography with fludeoxyglucose F 18 in imaging non-small cell lung cancer? J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg. 2009; 138: 439-445. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jtcvs.2008.12.026

[32] Piyavisetpat N., Aquino S.L., Hahn P.F. et al. Small incidental pulmonary nodules: how useful is short-term interval CT follow-up? J. Thorac. Imaging. 2005; 20: 5-9. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/01.rti.0000154076.06324.cf

[33] Ray J.F., Lawton B.R., Magnin G.E. et al. The coin lesion story: update 1976. Twenty years’ experience with thoracotomy for 179 suspected malignant coin lesions. Chest. 1976; 70: 332-336. http://dx.doi.org/10.1378/chest.70.3.332

[34] Revel M.P., Bissery A., Bienvenu M. et al. Are two-dimensional CT measurements of small noncalcified pulmonary nodules reliable? Radiology. 2004; 231: 453-458. http://dx.doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2312030167

[35] Revel M.P., Merlin A., Peyrard S. et al. Software volumetric evaluation of doubling times for differentiating benign versus malignant pulmonary nodules. AJR Am. J. Roentgenol. 2006; 187: 135-142. http://dx.doi.org/10.2214/AJR.05.1228

[36] Seo J.B., Im J.G., Goo J.M. et al. Atypical pulmonary metastases: spectrum of radiologic findings. Radiographics. 2001; 21: 403-417. http://dx.doi.org/10.1148/radiographics.21.2.g01mr17403

[37] Siegelman S.S., Khouri N.F., Scott W.W.Jr. et al. Pulmonary hamartoma: CT findings. Radiology. 1986; 160: 313-317. http://dx.doi.org/10.1148/radiology.160.2.3726106

[38] Song Y.S., Park C.M., Park S.J. et al. Volume and mass doubling times of persistent pulmonary subsolid nodules detected in patients without known malignancy. Radiology. 2014; 273: 276-284. http://dx.doi.org/10.1148/radiol.14132324

[39] Vansteenkiste J.F., Stroobants S.S. PET scan in lung cancer: current recommendations and innovation. J. Thorac Oncol. 2006; 1: 71-73. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1556-0864(15)31516-1

[40] Weinberger S.E. Diagnostic evaluation and management of the solitary pulmonary nodule. UpToDate. 2015. Aviable at: http://www.uptodate.com/contents/diagnostic-evaluation-and-management-of-the-solitary-pulmonary-nodule (access date: 23.12.2015).

[41] Winer-Muram H.T., Jennings S.G., Meyer C.A. et al. Effect of varying CT section width on volumetric measurement of lung tumors and application of compensatory equations. Radiology. 2003; 229: 184-194. http://dx.doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2291020859

[42] Yankelevitz D.F., Henschke C.I. Does 2-year stability imply that pulmonary nodules are benign? AJR Am. J. Roentgenol. 1997; 168: 325-328. http://dx.doi.org/10.2214/ajr.168.2.9016198

RIGHTS & PERMISSIONS

Porhanov V.A., Shulzhenko L.V., Polyakov I.S., Bolotova E.V., Smolin A.A.