Annals of Thoracic Medicine
REVIEW ARTICLE
Year
: 2019  |  Volume : 14  |  Issue : 4  |  Page : 226--238

Lung nodules: A comprehensive review on current approach and management


Konstantinos Loverdos, Andreas Fotiadis, Chrysoula Kontogianni, Marianthi Iliopoulou, Mina Gaga 
 7thRespiratory Medicine Department, Athens Chest Hospital, Athens, Greece

Correspondence Address:
Dr. Mina Gaga
7thRespiratory Medicine Department, Athens Chest Hospital, 152 Mesogion Avenue, 11527 Athens
Greece

Abstract

In daily clinical practice, radiologists and pulmonologists are faced with incidental radiographic findings of pulmonary nodules. Deciding how to manage these findings is very important as many of them may be benign and require no further action, but others may represent early disease and importantly early-stage lung cancer and require prompt diagnosis and definitive treatment. As the diagnosis of pulmonary nodules includes invasive procedures which can be relatively minimal, such as bronchoscopy or transthoracic aspiration or biopsy, but also more invasive procedures such as thoracic surgical biopsies, and as these procedures are linked to anxiety and to cost, it is important to have clearly defined algorithms for the description, management, and follow-up of these nodules. Clear algorithms for the imaging protocols and the management of positive findings should also exist in lung cancer screening programs, which are already established in the USA and which will hopefully be established worldwide. This article reviews current knowledge on nodule definition, diagnostic evaluation, and management based on literature data and mainly recent guidelines.



How to cite this article:
Loverdos K, Fotiadis A, Kontogianni C, Iliopoulou M, Gaga M. Lung nodules: A comprehensive review on current approach and management.Ann Thorac Med 2019;14:226-238


How to cite this URL:
Loverdos K, Fotiadis A, Kontogianni C, Iliopoulou M, Gaga M. Lung nodules: A comprehensive review on current approach and management. Ann Thorac Med [serial online] 2019 [cited 2019 Oct 22 ];14:226-238
Available from: http://www.thoracicmedicine.org/text.asp?2019/14/4/226/267947


Full Text



The incidental finding of lung nodule(s) in asymptomatic individuals is an increasingly common clinical dilemma encountered by radiologists and pulmonologists in daily clinical practice. Accurate identification and characterization of malignant lung nodules and development of clear algorithms for their management, permitting cure of early-stage lung cancer while avoiding morbidity, patient distress and increased costs caused by more invasive and unwarranted for benign disease approaches, remain a challenge.

Several scientific societies, including the Fleischner Society,[1] the British Thoracic Society (BTS),[2] the American College of Chest Physicians (ACCP),[3] and the National Comprehensive Cancer Network,[4] have published guidelines recommending algorithms for the management of lung nodules. Despite rather minor discrepancies, all proposed approaches take into consideration clinical risk factors for lung cancer, nodules imaging features, and previous imaging studies to assess the probability of malignancy and the most appropriate management. However, most of these recommendations are rather weak, relying on low-quality evidence, and current guidelines are only followed by a minority of clinicians (approximately 40%).[5] Moreover, the management of most patients presenting with incidental lung nodule(s) seems to rely largely on clinical judgment although evidence suggests that clear algorithms and a multidisciplinary approach are required.

Nodule management will become even more important, as evidence from the landmark National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) study, but also from the recently presented but yet unpublished NELSON trial, suggests that screening with low-dose computed tomography (CT) in high-risk individuals may reduce lung cancer mortality through the timely identification of malignant nodules corresponding to early-stage disease.[6]

The aim of this article is to provide a comprehensive review of the current knowledge on lung nodules and an accurate approach of their management based on all currently available guideline recommendations.

 What is Described as a Pulmonary Nodule?



According to the glossary of terms for chest imaging proposed by the Fleischner Society, a lung nodule is defined as an approximately rounded opacity more or less well-defined measuring up to 3 cm in diameter.[7] Rounded lesions measuring more than 3 cm in diameter are termed lung masses and should be considered indicative of lung cancer until histologically proven otherwise. Lung mass approach differs from that of nodules and will not be further discussed in this article.

Depending on their attenuation in CT imaging, lung nodules are categorized in three different types: (i) solid nodules, the most common type, characterized by homogeneous soft-tissue attenuation, (ii) ground-glass nodules, nonuniform in appearance with a hazy increase in local attenuation of lung parenchyma not obscuring the underlying bronchial and vascular structures, and (iii) part-solid nodules, comprising both solid and ground-glass attenuation components.

Lung nodules may be solitary or multiple. To be considered solitary, a nodule must be completely surrounded by normal lung parenchyma, without associated atelectasis, enlargement of the hilum, or pleural effusion.[3],[8] In contrast to the general impression, many individuals are found with multiple nodular lesions, especially nonsolid nodules. In the NELSON trial, only approximately half of the individuals screened presented a solitary pulmonary nodule,[9] while in two other screening cohorts, the median nodule count at baseline was 5 and 7, respectively.[10] In line with the NELSON trial management algorithm,[11] an approach to multiple nodules based on the larger or more suspicious nodule is generally proposed,[1],[2] but separate evaluation of each nodule without a priori denying curative intent therapies has also been recommended,[3] as many studies have shown that patients with malignant dominant nodules present benign satellite lesions.[12],[13],[14] It should be noted that the larger of multiple nodules is not always the malignant one. In the PanCan screening cohort, in approximately 20% of patients diagnosed with lung cancer, the malignant nodule proved not to be the largest one (in one case, it was actually only the fifth largest).[10]

The differential diagnosis of lung nodules is broad [Table 1]. The occurrence of relevant symptoms, the number of nodules, and their particular imaging characteristics (location, shape, presence and type of calcifications, and presence of spiculation or cavitation) may substantially narrow the differential diagnosis or even point toward a specific entity.{Table 1}

 How Often Are Lung Nodules Encountered?



In previous reports, nodule detection in the US was approximately 150,000 per year.[8],[15] This estimate was largely based on historical data from studies using chest X-ray (CXR) for the detection of nodules showing that a solitary lung nodule was found in 0.09%–0.20% of all CXRs performed at that time.[16],[17] Naturally, with the advent of chest CT imaging in daily clinical practice, the incidence of lung nodules has soared. A large retrospective study reported an increase in the annual rate of nodule detection by chest CT from 3.9 to 6.6/1000 person-years in the US between 2006 and 2012.[18] Interestingly, however, the rate of lung cancer diagnosis (63,000 new diagnoses) did not parallel this huge increase in nodule identification. A lower incidence (up to 12.6/100,000 person-years) was found in a similar epidemiological study undertaken in the French general population between 2002 and 2005.[19]

 Assessing the Pretest Probability of Malignancy



Assessing the pretest probability of malignancy is the first necessary step in the evaluation of every patient with newly identified lung nodule(s), and this is primarily dependent on the presence or absence of relevant risk factors in the history of individual patients. These risk factors are the following:

Current or past history of tobacco smoking

Tobacco smoking is by far the major risk factor for lung cancer and is implicated in 85% of all cancer-related deaths.[20] The relationship between smoking and lung cancer risk has long been shown to be dose dependent.[21],[22] The risk increases with the amount of tobacco consumed daily and more importantly the duration of active smoking.[23] However, there is no threshold below which tobacco smoking can be considered harmless. Smoking cessation diminishes the risk for lung cancer development,[24],[25],[26] but even in former smokers, the likelihood of lung cancer occurrence remains higher compared to never smokers.[27],[28]

Although most epidemiological data focus on active cigarette smoking, there is also evidence supporting a significant but less strong causal link of other products, such as pipes and cigars,[29],[30],[31] as well as second-hand smoking,[32],[33],[34] with lung cancer. The introduction of electronic cigarettes has led to a changing landscape in smoking habits, especially in younger populations. Potential harms associated with electronic cigarettes, including carcinogenicity, remain largely unknown, and epidemiologic studies addressing these issues will not be available in the short term. However, there are already experimental data showing that electronic cigarette use is associated with exposure to well-known lung carcinogens [35],[36] and may cause DNA damage in vitro and in vivo.[35],[37]

Aging

Older age has been consistently shown to correlate with an increased probability of malignancy in patients with lung nodules and is, in fact, incorporated in all composite prediction models developed for risk assessment in such patients.[10],[38],[39],[40] More than half of all cancers, including lung cancer, develop above the age of 70.[41],[42]

Occupational exposure to carcinogenic agents

Occupational exposure is an often overlooked risk factor for lung cancer. A detailed history of present and past occupations must be an integral part of the initial evaluation of any patient with lung nodules. Several dusts, metals and fumes have been causally linked with lung cancer [Table 2].[43],[44],[45],[46],[47],[48],[49],[50],[51],[52],[53] Simultaneous exposure to cigarette smoke acts synergistically, further augmenting lung cancer risk.[54],[55],[56],[57] For instance, in nonsmokers with asbestos exposure, the relative risk for lung cancer development is almost twice as high as in unexposed individuals. In smokers, the respective risk is approximately nine times higher.[54]{Table 2}

History of previous lung cancer

Lung cancer survivors are at increased risk for a second primary lung cancer.[58],[59],[60],[61] In a study of patients with NSCLC Stage I who underwent surgical resection, the incidence of a second lung cancer was almost seven times higher than that of initial lung cancer in the 1st year following resection and remained four times higher at 10 years.[60]

Patients with head-and-neck squamous cell carcinoma [62],[63] or other smoking-related malignant neoplasms, such as bladder or pancreatic cancer,[64],[65] are also at increased risk for a synchronous or metachronous primary lung cancer. Furthermore, lung cancer is the second most prevalent solid tumor presenting in Hodgkin disease survivors [66],[67] and is also common in non-Hodgkin lymphoma survivors.[68] Radiotherapy and chemotherapy with alkylating agents for index lymphoma treatment have been causally implicated in lung cancer development, both independently and additively.[67],[68],[69]

Family history of lung cancer

Family history is equally important. Individuals with a family history of lung cancer among first-degree relatives have been consistently shown to have a two-fold higher risk of developing lung cancer themselves.[70],[71] Those with multiple affected family members diagnosed at younger age appear to be at greater risk.

Comorbid chronic lung disease

Several studies [72],[73],[74],[75] support a strong and independent relationship between chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and lung cancer, extending beyond the common underlying etiology of smoking.[76],[77],[78] In the NLST, participants with spirometric evidence of COPD had a two-fold higher lung cancer risk compared to those with normal lung function.[79] Moreover, the presence of emphysema in chest CT scans has been independently correlated with increased lung cancer risk, even after adjusting for airflow limitation.[72]

Lung cancer has also been adopted as a major comorbidity of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis,[80] with an estimated prevalence of about 10% in this patient group.[81] Although smoking represents a common risk factor for both entities, it has been hypothesized that pulmonary fibrosis per se promotes carcinogenesis through so far unclear mechanisms.[81],[82],[83]

Comorbid lung diseases as well as consequent functional compromise frequently pose intractable challenges in lung nodule management and should be carefully assessed upon decision-making.

 Assessing the Imaging Features of the Nodules



Radiological evaluation is the second step in the approach of patients with lung nodules. Nodule size followed by growth rate is cardinal parameters for lung cancer probability estimation and management decision-making. Other imaging characteristics have also been identified as predictors of a malignant or benign etiology.[2]

Nodule size

Strongly associated with the probability of malignancy, nodule size represents a cornerstone in nodule assessment in all recommended algorithms.[1],[2],[3],[4] Based on observations in high-risk patients from lung cancer screening trials,[10],[84] a cut diameter below 6 mm is proposed by most recent guidelines as an indicator of acceptably low cancer risk (<1%).[1],[4] The same cutoff applies for both solitary and multiple solid nodules as well as for solitary subsolid nodules.[1],[4] A second clinically relevant cutoff diameter is >8 mm. Using data from the NELSON trial, a high lung cancer probability of 9.7% can be estimated for solid nodules ≥8 mm compared to an intermediate probability of about 1% in those smaller than 8 mm (and larger than 5 mm).[2],[84]

Nodule growth rate

A growing lung nodule is highly likely to be a malignant one. Individuals with incidentally discovered nodules must always be instructed to present prior imaging studies for comparison, if available, and depending on the time interval, nodule stability practically abolishes the need for any further action. The relatively rapid growth rate of lung cancerous lesions forms the theoretical basis for CT surveillance applied in the management of lung nodules. Volume-doubling time (VDT), although rarely applied in clinical practice, is the most sensitive marker used for growth rate estimation.[85],[86],[87] One VDT corresponds to a 26% increase in nodule diameter. The majority of lung cancers present VDTs of up to 400 days, with the highest risk of malignancy associated with VDTs of [84],[85],[86] However, VDTs of >400 days do not preclude malignancy. In the study of Horeweg et al., the probability of malignancy was significantly increased in participants with VDTs between 400 and 600 days, and lung cancer was diagnosed in 1% of patients with VDTs ≥1000 days.[84] Most of these cases represent lung adenocarcinomas.[88],[89] Despite the undeniable importance of growth rate, approximately 20% of nodules ultimately proven malignant actually shrinked at some point during follow-up.[3]

Other predictors of malignant etiology

Spiculation of the nodule anatomical margins has been persistently shown to correlate with an increased risk of lung cancer.[10],[38],[40],[90],[91] The majority of lung cancers occur in the upper lobes, and upper lobe nodule location has been identified as predictor of malignancy.[10],[38] Other less dominant malignant characteristics are pleural indentation, vascular convergence, and air bronchograms.[92],[93]

Predictors of benign etiology

Perifissural nodules, defined as solid nodules in contact with a fissure or the pleural surface,[94] are considered benign, most probably depicting intrapulmonary lymph nodes.[95] In screening cohorts, no patient with such nodules has been diagnosed with lung cancer, even after long-term follow-up.[10],[94],[96] Therefore, BTS guidelines recommend against further investigation of small (<10 mm), homogeneous, smooth perifissural, and subpleural nodules.[2] The Fleischner society guidelines, on the other hand, specifically state that perifissural or subpleural location does not per se definitely abolish the probability of malignancy and morphological (e.g., spiculation or fissure displacement), and clinical risk factors have to be considered for appropriate management.[1]

Calcified lung nodules are generally not considered malignant. However, in an earlier study, calcification was present in 10% of lung cancer cases.[97] Special attention must be paid to the pattern of calcification. Diffuse, central, laminated, and popcorn calcification patterns are predictors of benign etiology.[98] When encountered, they obviate the need for further lung nodule investigation.[2] On the contrary, punctuate, eccentric, and amorphous calcifications are indeterminate patterns that should not be considered as preclusive of malignancy.

Fat attenuation of a pulmonary nodule is almost diagnostic of hamartoma and excludes primary lung cancer as a potential cause.[98]

 Recommendations for the Practical Approach of Patients With Lung Nodules



It is recommended that the evaluation of patients with lung nodules should be undertaken by a multidisciplinary team, including pulmonologists, oncologists, radiologists, and thoracic surgeons with expertise in the field. The aim of this multidisciplinary evaluation is to estimate the probability of malignancy and determine the most appropriate management.[1],[4] Smoking cessation is strongly advised in all smokers either with incidentally discovered nodules or entering a screening program.[4]

Risk assessment

The diagnostic approach should always start with a detailed evaluation of patient history and imaging studies. Given the multiplicity of relevant clinical and radiological characteristics and the possibility of conflicting influences thereof in an individual patient (e.g., a never smoker with a spiculated, 15-mm upper lobe nodule), several composite malignant risk prediction models have been developed with the use of multivariate logistic regression analysis [Table 3]. Age, smoking status, and nodule diameter are invariably included in all of them, while individual differences reflect discrepancies in the populations used for model derivation.[99],[100],[101],[102],[103],[104]{Table 3}

Some of the available guidelines (ACCP, BTS) favor clinical use of prediction models for assigning patients with lung nodules ≥8 mm in diameter in a high- or low-risk group.[2],[3] BTS guidelines, for example, recommend the use of Brock model for initial risk assessment, followed by positron emission tomography/CT (PET/CT) scan and the Herder model application in cases of a Brock model risk estimation of ≥10%.[2] However, prediction models have not been clearly shown to perform superiorly than clinical judgment [105],[106] and their use is not unanimously suggested. In the most current Fleischner society guidelines, the adoption of prediction models is clearly discouraged.[1] Instead, a dichotomous risk stratification scheme is proposed consisting of a low-risk (<5%) group, associated with younger age, less smoking, smaller, smooth, and nonupper lobe nodules and a high-risk (>5%) group, associated with some or all of the opposite features.

Management of patients with pulmonary nodules

Management options in patients with incidentally detected lung nodules include (a) no further action, (b) CT surveillance in intervals determined by nodule size and clinical risk, (c) further imaging investigation with PET/CT scan, (d) further invasive investigation with nonsurgical biopsies (in most cases CT-guided fine-needle biopsies from peripheral nodules), (e) concurrent definitive histological diagnosis and treatment by means of surgical excision (normally lobectomy or exceptionally sublobar excisions), (f) stereotactic body radiation therapy or radiofrequency ablation in medically inoperable patients, and (g) combinations of the above. Decisions on the most appropriate management option(s) are guided by nodule size, clinical risk of malignancy, patient preferences, and overall health status.[1],[2],[3]

The importance of shared decision-making between patients and clinicians could not be overstated. Lung nodule identification is naturally associated with significant anxiety and fear.[107],[108] It has been shown that information on the probability of cancer is actually deemed reassuring by most patients;[107] a detailed discussion including expected risks and benefits associated with the different management options promotes adherence to evaluation plans.[109] These needs should be met by the clinician. Moreover, patient preferences must be taken into consideration: some patients find CT surveillance strategies too stressful to bear, when knowing that an even remote probability of malignancy exists, while others would most certainly decide against a surgical operation, unless or even if a definite cancer diagnosis is reached.

The various management recommendations according to nodule size and attenuation, reported in published guidelines, are discussed below and comparatively summarized in [Table 4].{Table 4}

Small nodules (<5 or 6 mm)

Small nodules are linked to a very low risk of malignancy, and consequently, no further evaluation is generally warranted. Small size exact definition differs slightly between guidelines. According to the Fleischner society, nodules <6 mm in diameter (or <100 mm 3 in volume) are considered small enough to discharge the patient,[1] while the respective cutoff is somewhat lower (<5 mm or <80 mm 3) in the earlier ACCP and BTS guidelines,[2],[3] based on the results of the study of Horeweg et al., who found that only nodules <5 mm (or <100 mm 3) were not associated with a significantly increased cancer risk.[2],[84] These recommendations apply to all solitary and multiple solid nodules.[1],[2] In patients with multiple small subsolid nodules, a short-term follow-up CT is warranted [Table 4].

Intermediate solid nodules (<8 mm)

In this case, CT surveillance is invariably recommended,[1],[2],[3] based on an estimated cancer risk of 0.5%–2% in high clinical probability screening populations.[10],[84] A repeat CT scan 6–12 months (3–6 months for multiple nodules) after baseline, usually followed by a second one at 18–24 months, especially in high-risk patients, is the most recently proposed scheme.[1] Follow-up CT number and intervals differ between guidelines and depending on size and clinical risk [Table 4]. Constantly unchanged nodules after a 2-year follow-up are generally benign [110] and permit discharge of most patients although clear lack of growth even for as much as 2 years does not definitively preclude malignancy in all cases.[1] In BTS guidelines, volumetric stability is a prerequisite for discharge,[2] given the superior sensitivity of automated or semi-automated three-dimensional volumetric methods for size change assessment compared to standard transverse cross-sectional diameter approach.[111],[112],[113],[114] However, volumetric method use in daily clinical practice is still limited. For patients presenting clear evidence of lung nodule(s) growth during the CT surveillance period, further diagnostic assessment should be pursued.

Larger solid nodules (≥8 mm)

Solid nodules ≥8 mm, linked with a risk of malignancy surpassing 2%, necessitate a more aggressive approach. Acceptable alternatives include short initial interval CT follow-up (at 3 months), PET/CT scan, nonsurgical biopsy, or definite surgical excision.[1] Equivalence of these approaches remains unknown, and choice is usually guided by nodule exact size, location, and morphology as well as patient- (clinical risk factors, comorbidities, suitability for lung resection, and preferences) and health-care system-related (resource availability and local expertise) factors.

Some expert panels have issued more precise recommendations in the form of algorithms. ACCP algorithm begins with a concurrent assessment of lung cancer and surgical risk.[3] Of note, ACCP introduced a concrete qualitative way to define clinical probability of cancer [Table 4]. When surgery is feasible, surgical excision after staging is recommended in high-risk patients. In case of low/moderate probability of malignancy, PET/CT should be performed, and if negative, CT surveillance or nonsurgical biopsy should follow. If a hypermetabolic lung nodule is detected in PET/CT, surgical resection, preceded or not by biopsy, is the next reasonable step. BTS, on the other hand, has developed a somewhat different algorithm incorporating quantitative prediction models for cancer risk assessment [Table 4].[2]

Patients with multiple solid nodules one or more of which exceeds 8 mm in diameter should be managed according to the most suspicious (or dominant) nodule, which is usually but not necessarily the largest one.[1] Lung metastatic disease is the primary concern in these cases, especially when nodules are located peripherally in the lower lung fields and vary considerably in size.[115] PET/CT may be helpful in these cases.[3]

Larger subsolid nodules (≥5 or 6 mm)

Pure ground-glass and part-solid nodules are less frequently encountered than solid nodules. In two large screening cohorts, ground-glass nodules were found in 15.8% and 9.3% of cases, while part-solid nodules were even less common accounting for 4.3% and 0.9% of all nodules detected.[10] In the same study, part-solid morphology was identified as a significant predictor of malignancy, when compared with solid attenuation pattern, which was not the case for pure ground-glass nodules.[10] Thus, in patients presenting a new solid component during follow-up of initially pure ground-glass nodules, malignancy should be considered highly likely,[116],[117],[118] and the more extensive the solid component of the nodule, the higher the risk to represent invasive carcinoma.[119],[120],[121] Total subsolid nodule size has also been linked with the probability of adenocarcinoma occurrence and invasiveness.[122] In series of patients with excised subsolid nodules, ground-glass nodules <10 mm were scantly identified as invasive adenocarcinoma in histological analysis.[123],[124] Conversely, in both pure ground-glass and part-solid nodules measuring >10 mm, and even more >15 mm, the probability of malignancy is significantly elevated.[125],[126] Specific morphologic features, including bubbly lucencies, air-bronchograms, spiculation, and pleural retraction, are also associated with an increased risk of malignancy and invasiveness.[120],[127],[128],[129] Another important consideration for subsolid nodules is their association with slowly growing tumors in the spectrum of lung adenocarcinoma (adenocarcinoma in situ, minimally invasive adenocarcinoma, and lepidic-predominant invasive adenocarcinoma).[130] This implies that a more prolonged follow-up, extending beyond the usual 2-year time frame, is warranted in subsolid nodules.[1],[2],[3] In addition, in contrast to solid nodules, the available options for the evaluation of subsolid nodules are limited by the relative insensitivity of important diagnostic tools, namely PET scan [131],[132] and nonsurgical biopsy.[133],[134] This holds particularly true for pure ground-glass nodules, while both interventions appear to have a higher diagnostic yield in mixed nodules with a significantly large solid component.[132],[133],[134]

Based on the above, CT surveillance is invariably recommended in all patients with solitary subsolid lung nodules measuring ≥6 mm.[1],[2],[3] The proposed intervals are shorter for the higher risk part-solid nodules compared to the more indolent pure ground-glass nodules.[1],[3] When persistence is confirmed, further CT follow-up for a total of 5 years is recommended for stable ground-glass and smaller part-solid nodules. Persistent solitary part-solid nodules measuring >8 mm in diameter [3] or with a solid component ≥6 mm [1] require a more aggressive workup, including PET/CT (only when solid component is ≥8 mm), nonsurgical biopsy, surgical excision, or combinations. A different approach omitting the discrimination between pure ground-glass and part-solid nodule attenuation is favored by BTS [Table 4].[2]

In patients with multiple subsolid nodules at least one of which is ≥6 mm, follow-up CT at 3–6 months and management focused on the most suspicious nodule are recommended.[1] Infectious and other inflammatory causes are common, but multiple primary lung adenocarcinomas should also be considered.[118] The detection of more than one suspicious nodule raises significantly the likelihood of malignancy. Multiplicity should not preclude a possible definite surgical intervention. Similar proportions of patients with multiple and solitary nodules have undergone surgery and have presented recurrence afterward in published series.[118],[135]

 Conclusions



Appropriate management of asymptomatic individuals with incidentally discovered lung nodules should balance between potential harm – driven by unnecessary invasive procedures in the case of benign nodules – and the need to diagnose malignant nodules early. This is not always simple or even feasible. All guideline suggested management algorithms take into consideration the pretest clinical probability of lung cancer and CT features of lung nodules. Rates of compliance with these recommendations are, nevertheless, generally low, mainly reflecting complexity. Patient preferences should always be included in management decisions, and multidisciplinary tumor boards are of cardinal importance. Future research should focus on the development and validation of simpler nodule evaluation algorithms, possibly incorporating novel diagnostic modalities, such as molecular signatures, biomarkers, and liquid biopsies.

Financial support and sponsorship

Nil.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.

References

1MacMahon H, Naidich DP, Goo JM, Lee KS, Leung AN, Mayo JR, et al. Guidelines for management of incidental pulmonary nodules detected on CT images: From the Fleischner Society 2017. Radiology 2017;284:228-43.
2Callister ME, Baldwin DR, Akram AR, Barnard S, Cane P, Draffan J, et al. British Thoracic Society guidelines for the investigation and management of pulmonary nodules. Thorax 2015;70 Suppl 2:ii1-54.
3Gould MK, Donington J, Lynch WR, Mazzone PJ, Midthun DE, Naidich DP, 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-120S.
4NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines ®) Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Version 2.2019; 21 November, 2018. Available from: https://www.nccn.org/. [Last accessed on 2018 Dec 12].
5Tanner NT, Porter A, Gould MK, Li XJ, Vachani A, Silvestri GA, et al. Physician assessment of pretest probability of malignancy and adherence with guidelines for pulmonary nodule evaluation. Chest 2017;152:263-70.
6National Lung Screening Trial Research Team, Aberle DR, Adams AM, Berg CD, Black WC, Clapp JD, et al. Reduced lung-cancer mortality with low-dose computed tomographic screening. N Engl J Med 2011;365:395-409.
7Hansell DM, Bankier AA, MacMahon H, McLoud TC, Müller NL, Remy J, et al. Fleischner Society: Glossary of terms for thoracic imaging. Radiology 2008;246:697-722.
8Ost D, Fein AM, Feinsilver SH. Clinical practice. The solitary pulmonary nodule. N Engl J Med 2003;348:2535-42.
9Heuvelmans MA, Walter JE, Peters RB, Bock GH, Yousaf-Khan U, Aalst CM, et al. Relationship between nodule count and lung cancer probability in baseline CT lung cancer screening: The NELSON study. Lung Cancer 2017;113:45-50.
10McWilliams A, Tammemagi MC, Mayo JR, Roberts H, Liu G, Soghrati K, et al. Probability of cancer in pulmonary nodules detected on first screening CT. N Engl J Med 2013;369:910-9.
11van Klaveren RJ, Oudkerk M, Prokop M, Scholten ET, Nackaerts K, Vernhout R, et al. Management of lung nodules detected by volume CT scanning. N Engl J Med 2009;361:2221-9.
12Kunitoh H, Eguchi K, Yamada K, Tsuchiya R, Kaneko M, Moriyama N, et al. Intrapulmonary sublesions detected before surgery in patients with lung cancer. Cancer 1992;70:1876-9.
13Keogan MT, Tung KT, Kaplan DK, Goldstraw PJ, Hansell DM. The significance of pulmonary nodules detected on CT staging for lung cancer. Clin Radiol 1993;48:94-6.
14Swensen SJ, Jett JR, Hartman TE, Midthun DE, Mandrekar SJ, Hillman SL, et al. CT screening for lung cancer: Five-year prospective experience. Radiology 2005;235:259-65.
15Ost D, Fein A. Evaluation and management of the solitary pulmonary nodule. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2000;162:782-7.
16Good CA, Wilson TW. The solitary circumscribed pulmonary nodule; study of seven hundred five cases encountered roentgenologically in a period of three and one-half years. J Am Med Assoc 1958;166:210-5.
17Holin SM, Dwork RE, Glaser S, Rikli AE, Stocklen JB. Solitary pulmonary nodules found in a community-wide chest roentgenographic survey; a five-year follow-up study. Am Rev Tuberc 1959;79:427-39.
18Gould MK, Tang T, Liu IL, Lee J, Zheng C, Danforth KN, et al. Recent trends in the identification of incidental pulmonary nodules. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2015;192:1208-14.
19Marrer É, Jolly D, Arveux P, Lejeune C, Woronoff-Lemsi MC, Jégu J, et al. Incidence of solitary pulmonary nodules in Northeastern France: A population-based study in five regions. BMC Cancer 2017;17:47.
20Wood DE, Kazerooni EA, Baum SL, Eapen GA, Ettinger DS, Hou L, et al. Lung cancer screening, version 3.2018, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology. J Natl Compr Canc Netw 2018;16:412-41.
21Doll R, Hill AB. Smoking and carcinoma of the lung; preliminary report. Br Med J 1950;2:739-48.
22Wynder EL, Graham EA. Tobacco smoking as a possible etiologic factor in bronchiogenic carcinoma; a study of 684 proved cases. J Am Med Assoc 1950;143:329-36.
23Flanders WD, Lally CA, Zhu BP, Henley SJ, Thun MJ. Lung cancer mortality in relation to age, duration of smoking, and daily cigarette consumption: Results from cancer prevention study II. Cancer Res 2003;63:6556-62.
24Jha P, Ramasundarahettige C, Landsman V, Rostron B, Thun M, Anderson RN, et al. 21st-century hazards of smoking and benefits of cessation in the United States. N Engl J Med 2013;368:341-50.
25Moolgavkar SH, Holford TR, Levy DT, Kong CY, Foy M, Clarke L, et al. Impact of reduced tobacco smoking on lung cancer mortality in the United States during 1975-2000. J Natl Cancer Inst 2012;104:541-8.
26Doll R, Peto R, Boreham J, Sutherland I. Mortality in relation to smoking: 50 years' observations on male British doctors. BMJ 2004;328:1519.
27Tindle HA, Stevenson Duncan M, Greevy RA, Vasan RS, Kundu S, Massion PP, et al. Lifetime smoking history and risk of lung cancer: Results from the framingham heart study. J Natl Cancer Inst 2018;110:1201-7.
28Pesch B, Kendzia B, Gustavsson P, Jöckel KH, Johnen G, Pohlabeln H, et al. Cigarette smoking and lung cancer – Relative risk estimates for the major histological types from a pooled analysis of case-control studies. Int J Cancer 2012;131:1210-9.
29Boffetta P, Pershagen G, Jöckel KH, Forastiere F, Gaborieau V, Heinrich J, et al. Cigar and pipe smoking and lung cancer risk: A multicenter study from europe. J Natl Cancer Inst 1999;91:697-701.
30Malhotra J, Borron C, Freedman ND, Abnet CC, van den Brandt PA, White E, et al. Association between cigar or pipe smoking and cancer risk in men: A Pooled analysis of five cohort studies. Cancer Prev Res (Phila) 2017;10:704-9.
31McCormack VA, Agudo A, Dahm CC, Overvad K, Olsen A, Tjonneland A, et al. Cigar and pipe smoking and cancer risk in the European prospective investigation into cancer and nutrition (EPIC). Int J Cancer 2010;127:2402-11.
32Hori M, Tanaka H, Wakai K, Sasazuki S, Katanoda K. Secondhand smoke exposure and risk of lung cancer in Japan: A systematic review and meta-analysis of epidemiologic studies. Jpn J Clin Oncol 2016;46:942-51.
33Taylor R, Najafi F, Dobson A. Meta-analysis of studies of passive smoking and lung cancer: Effects of study type and continent. Int J Epidemiol 2007;36:1048-59.
34Hackshaw AK, Law MR, Wald NJ. The accumulated evidence on lung cancer and environmental tobacco smoke. BMJ 1997;315:980-8.
35Lee HW, Park SH, Weng MW, Wang HT, Huang WC, Lepor H, et al. E-cigarette smoke damages DNA and reduces repair activity in mouse lung, heart, and bladder as well as in human lung and bladder cells. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2018;115:E1560-9.
36Hess CA, Olmedo P, Navas-Acien A, Goessler W, Cohen JE, Rule AM, et al. E-cigarettes as a source of toxic and potentially carcinogenic metals. Environ Res 2017;152:221-5.
37Anderson C, Majeste A, Hanus J, Wang S. E-cigarette aerosol exposure induces reactive oxygen species, DNA damage, and cell death in vascular endothelial cells. Toxicol Sci 2016;154:332-40.
38Swensen SJ, Silverstein MD, Ilstrup DM, Schleck CD, Edell ES. The probability of malignancy in solitary pulmonary nodules. Application to small radiologically indeterminate nodules. Arch Intern Med 1997;157:849-55.
39Gould MK, Ananth L, Barnett PG; Veterans Affairs SNAP Cooperative Study Group. A clinical model to estimate the pretest probability of lung cancer in patients with solitary pulmonary nodules. Chest 2007;131:383-8.
40Li Y, Chen KZ, Wang J. Development and validation of a clinical prediction model to estimate the probability of malignancy in solitary pulmonary nodules in Chinese people. Clin Lung Cancer 2011;12:313-9.
41Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2015. CA Cancer J Clin 2015;65:5-29.
42Meiners S, Eickelberg O, Königshoff M. Hallmarks of the ageing lung. Eur Respir J 2015;45:807-27.
43Nielsen LS, Bælum J, Rasmussen J, Dahl S, Olsen KE, Albin M, et al. Occupational asbestos exposure and lung cancer – A systematic review of the literature. Arch Environ Occup Health 2014;69:191-206.
44Steenland K, Ward E. Silica: A lung carcinogen. CA Cancer J Clin 2014;64:63-9.
45Pukkala E, Martinsen JI, Lynge E, Gunnarsdottir HK, Sparén P, Tryggvadottir L, et al. Occupation and cancer – Follow-up of 15 million people in five Nordic countries. Acta Oncol 2009;48:646-790.
46Schubauer-Berigan MK, Couch JR, Deddens JA. Is beryllium-induced lung cancer caused only by soluble forms and high exposure levels? Occup Environ Med 2017;74:601-3.
47Proctor DM, Suh M, Mittal L, Hirsch S, Valdes Salgado R, Bartlett C, et al. Inhalation cancer risk assessment of hexavalent chromium based on updated mortality for Painesville chromate production workers. J Expo Sci Environ Epidemiol 2016;26:224-31.
48Lubin JH, Moore LE, Fraumeni JF Jr., Cantor KP. Respiratory cancer and inhaled inorganic arsenic in copper smelters workers: A linear relationship with cumulative exposure that increases with concentration. Environ Health Perspect 2008;116:1661-5.
49Grimsrud TK, Berge SR, Haldorsen T, Andersen A. Exposure to different forms of nickel and risk of lung cancer. Am J Epidemiol 2002;156:1123-32.
50Park RM, Stayner LT, Petersen MR, Finley-Couch M, Hornung R, Rice C, et al. Cadmium and lung cancer mortality accounting for simultaneous arsenic exposure. Occup Environ Med 2012;69:303-9.
51Leuraud K, Schnelzer M, Tomasek L, Hunter N, Timarche M, Grosche B, et al. Radon, smoking and lung cancer risk: Results of a joint analysis of three European case-control studies among uranium miners. Radiat Res 2011;176:375-87.
52Silverman DT, Samanic CM, Lubin JH, Blair AE, Stewart PA, Vermeulen R, et al. The diesel exhaust in miners study: A nested case-control study of lung cancer and diesel exhaust. J Natl Cancer Inst 2012;104:855-68.
53Attfield MD, Schleiff PL, Lubin JH, Blair A, Stewart PA, Vermeulen R, et al. The diesel exhaust in miners study: A cohort mortality study with emphasis on lung cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 2012;104:869-83.
54Ngamwong Y, Tangamornsuksan W, Lohitnavy O, Chaiyakunapruk N, Scholfield CN, Reisfeld B, et al. Additive synergism between asbestos and smoking in lung cancer risk: A Systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One 2015;10:e0135798.
55Liu Y, Steenland K, Rong Y, Hnizdo E, Huang X, Zhang H, et al. Exposure-response analysis and risk assessment for lung cancer in relationship to silica exposure: A 44-year cohort study of 34,018 workers. Am J Epidemiol 2013;178:1424-33.
56Chen CL, Hsu LI, Chiou HY, Hsueh YM, Chen SY, Wu MM, et al. Ingested arsenic, cigarette smoking, and lung cancer risk: A follow-up study in arseniasis-endemic areas in Taiwan. JAMA 2004;292:2984-90.
57Darby S, Hill D, Auvinen A, Barros-Dios JM, Baysson H, Bochicchio F, et al. Radon in homes and risk of lung cancer: Collaborative analysis of individual data from 13 european case-control studies. BMJ 2005;330:223.
58Johnson BE. Second lung cancers in patients after treatment for an initial lung cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 1998;90:1335-45.
59Rice D, Kim HW, Sabichi A, Lippman S, Lee JJ, Williams B, et al. The risk of second primary tumors after resection of stage I nonsmall cell lung cancer. Ann Thorac Surg 2003;76:1001-7.
60Surapaneni R, Singh P, Rajagopalan K, Hageboutros A. Stage I lung cancer survivorship: Risk of second malignancies and need for individualized care plan. J Thorac Oncol 2012;7:1252-6.
61Lou F, Huang J, Sima CS, Dycoco J, Rusch V, Bach PB, et al. Patterns of recurrence and second primary lung cancer in early-stage lung cancer survivors followed with routine computed tomography surveillance. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2013;145:75-81.
62Milano MT, Peterson CR 3rd, Zhang H, Singh DP, Chen Y. Second primary lung cancer after head and neck squamous cell cancer: Population-based study of risk factors. Head Neck 2012;34:1782-8.
63Morris LG, Sikora AG, Patel SG, Hayes RB, Ganly I. Second primary cancers after an index head and neck cancer: Subsite-specific trends in the era of human papillomavirus-associated oropharyngeal cancer. J Clin Oncol 2011;29:739-46.
64Kwon WA, Joung JY, Lim J, Oh CM, Jung KW, Kim SH, et al. Risk of second primary cancer among bladder cancer patients: A population-based cohort study in korea. BMC Cancer 2018;18:617.
65Walsh GL. Pancreatic cancer patients and thoracic surgeons: Could/should their clinic templates ever overlap? J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2016;152:83-4.
66Hoppe RT. Hodgkin's disease: Complications of therapy and excess mortality. Ann Oncol 1997;8 Suppl 1:115-8.
67Lorigan P, Radford J, Howell A, Thatcher N. Lung cancer after treatment for Hodgkin's lymphoma: A systematic review. Lancet Oncol 2005;6:773-9.
68Pirani M, Marcheselli R, Marcheselli L, Bari A, Federico M, Sacchi S, et al. Risk for second malignancies in non-Hodgkin's lymphoma survivors: A meta-analysis. Ann Oncol 2011;22:1845-58.
69Travis LB, Gospodarowicz M, Curtis RE, Clarke EA, Andersson M, Glimelius B, et al. Lung cancer following chemotherapy and radiotherapy for Hodgkin's disease. J Natl Cancer Inst 2002;94:182-92.
70Nitadori J, Inoue M, Iwasaki M, Otani T, Sasazuki S, Nagai K, et al. Association between lung cancer incidence and family history of lung cancer: Data from a large-scale population-based cohort study, the JPHC study. Chest 2006;130:968-75.
71Matakidou A, Eisen T, Houlston RS. Systematic review of the relationship between family history and lung cancer risk. Br J Cancer 2005;93:825-33.
72Wilson DO, Weissfeld JL, Balkan A, Schragin JG, Fuhrman CR, Fisher SN, et al. Association of radiographic emphysema and airflow obstruction with lung cancer. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2008;178:738-44.
73Young RP, Hopkins RJ, Christmas T, Black PN, Metcalf P, Gamble GD, et al. COPD prevalence is increased in lung cancer, independent of age, sex and smoking history. Eur Respir J 2009;34:380-6.
74Henschke CI, Yip R, Boffetta P, Markowitz S, Miller A, Hanaoka T, et al. CT screening for lung cancer: Importance of emphysema for never smokers and smokers. Lung Cancer 2015;88:42-7.
75Sanchez-Salcedo P, Wilson DO, de-Torres JP, Weissfeld JL, Berto J, Campo A, et al. Improving selection criteria for lung cancer screening. The potential role of emphysema. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2015;191:924-31.
76Houghton AM. Mechanistic links between COPD and lung cancer. Nat Rev Cancer 2013;13:233-45.
77Vermaelen K, Brusselle G. Exposing a deadly alliance: Novel insights into the biological links between COPD and lung cancer. Pulm Pharmacol Ther 2013;26:544-54.
78Durham AL, Adcock IM. The relationship between COPD and lung cancer. Lung Cancer 2015;90:121-7.
79Young RP, Duan F, Chiles C, Hopkins RJ, Gamble GD, Greco EM, et al. Airflow limitation and histology shift in the national lung screening trial. The NLST-ACRIN cohort substudy. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2015;192:1060-7.
80Raghu G, Amatto VC, Behr J, Stowasser S. Comorbidities in idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis patients: A systematic literature review. Eur Respir J 2015;46:1113-30.
81Antoniou KM, Tomassetti S, Tsitoura E, Vancheri C. Idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis and lung cancer: A clinical and pathogenesis update. Curr Opin Pulm Med 2015;21:626-33.
82Horowitz JC, Osterholzer JJ, Marazioti A, Stathopoulos GT. “Scar-cinoma”: Viewing the fibrotic lung mesenchymal cell in the context of cancer biology. Eur Respir J 2016;47:1842-54.
83Vancheri C. Idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis and cancer: Do they really look similar? BMC Med 2015;13:220.
84Horeweg N, van Rosmalen J, Heuvelmans MA, van der Aalst CM, Vliegenthart R, Scholten ET, et al. Lung cancer probability in patients with CT-detected pulmonary nodules: A prespecified analysis of data from the NELSON trial of low-dose CT screening. Lancet Oncol 2014;15:1332-41.
85Henschke CI, Yankelevitz DF, Yip R, Reeves AP, Farooqi A, Xu D, et al. Lung cancers diagnosed at annual CT screening: Volume doubling times. Radiology 2012;263:578-83.
86Heuvelmans MA, Oudkerk M, de Bock GH, de Koning HJ, Xie X, van Ooijen PM, et al. Optimisation of volume-doubling time cutoff for fast-growing lung nodules in CT lung cancer screening reduces false-positive referrals. Eur Radiol 2013;23:1836-45.
87Mehta HJ, Ravenel JG, Shaftman SR, Tanner NT, Paoletti L, Taylor KK, et al. The utility of nodule volume in the context of malignancy prediction for small pulmonary nodules. Chest 2014;145:464-72.
88Hasegawa M, Sone S, Takashima S, Li F, Yang ZG, Maruyama Y, et al. Growth rate of small lung cancers detected on mass CT screening. Br J Radiol 2000;73:1252-9.
89Chang B, Hwang JH, Choi YH, Chung MP, Kim H, Kwon OJ, et al. Natural history of pure ground-glass opacity lung nodules detected by low-dose CT scan. Chest 2013;143:172-8.
90Xu DM, van der Zaag-Loonen HJ, Oudkerk M, Wang Y, Vliegenthart R, Scholten ET, et al. Smooth or attached solid indeterminate nodules detected at baseline CT screening in the NELSON study: Cancer risk during 1 year of follow-up. Radiology 2009;250:264-72.
91Yonemori K, Tateishi U, Uno H, Yonemori Y, Tsuta K, Takeuchi M, et al. Development and validation of diagnostic prediction model for solitary pulmonary nodules. Respirology 2007;12:856-62.
92Nambu A, Araki T, Taguchi Y, Ozawa K, Miyata K, Miyazawa M, et al. Focal area of ground-glass opacity and ground-glass opacity predominance on thin-section CT: Discrimination between neoplastic and non-neoplastic lesions. Clin Radiol 2005;60:1006-17.
93Jiang L, Situ D, Lin Y, Su X, Zheng Y, Zhang Y, et al. Clinical model to estimate the pretest probability of malignancy in patients with pulmonary focal ground-glass opacity. Thorac Cancer 2013;4:380-4.
94de Hoop B, van Ginneken B, Gietema H, Prokop M. Pulmonary perifissural nodules on CT scans: Rapid growth is not a predictor of malignancy. Radiology 2012;265:611-6.
95Wang CW, Teng YH, Huang CC, Wu YC, Chao YK, Wu CT, et al. Intrapulmonary lymph nodes: Computed tomography findings with histopathologic correlations. Clin Imaging 2013;37:487-92.
96Ahn MI, Gleeson TG, Chan IH, McWilliams AM, Macdonald SL, Lam S, et al. Perifissural nodules seen at CT screening for lung cancer. Radiology 2010;254:949-56.
97Grewal RG, Austin JH. CT demonstration of calcification in carcinoma of the lung. J Comput Assist Tomogr 1994;18:867-71.
98Truong MT, Ko JP, Rossi SE, Rossi I, Viswanathan C, Bruzzi JF, et al. Update in the evaluation of the solitary pulmonary nodule. Radiographics 2014;34:1658-79.
99Xiao F, Liu D, Guo Y, Shi B, Song Z, Tian Y, et al. Novel and convenient method to evaluate the character of solitary pulmonary nodule-comparison of three mathematical prediction models and further stratification of risk factors. PLoS One 2013;8:e78271.
100Schultz EM, Sanders GD, Trotter PR, Patz EF Jr., Silvestri GA, Owens DK, et al. Validation of two models to estimate the probability of malignancy in patients with solitary pulmonary nodules. Thorax 2008;63:335-41.
101Isbell JM, Deppen S, Putnam JB Jr., Nesbitt JC, Lambright ES, Dawes A, et al. Existing general population models inaccurately predict lung cancer risk in patients referred for surgical evaluation. Ann Thorac Surg 2011;91:227-33.
102Herder GJ, van Tinteren H, Golding RP, Kostense PJ, Comans EF, Smit EF, et al. Clinical prediction model to characterize pulmonary nodules: Validation and added value of 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography. Chest 2005;128:2490-6.
103Al-Ameri A, Malhotra P, Thygesen H, Plant PK, Vaidyanathan S, Karthik S, et al. Risk of malignancy in pulmonary nodules: A validation study of four prediction models. Lung Cancer 2015;89:27-30.
104Deppen SA, Blume JD, Aldrich MC, Fletcher SA, Massion PP, Walker RC, et al. Predicting lung cancer prior to surgical resection in patients with lung nodules. J Thorac Oncol 2014;9:1477-84.
105Swensen SJ, Silverstein MD, Edell ES, Trastek VF, Aughenbaugh GL, Ilstrup DM, et al. Solitary pulmonary nodules: Clinical prediction model versus physicians. Mayo Clin Proc 1999;74:319-29.
106Balekian AA, Silvestri GA, Simkovich SM, Mestaz PJ, Sanders GD, Daniel J, et al. Accuracy of clinicians and models for estimating the probability that a pulmonary nodule is malignant. Ann Am Thorac Soc 2013;10:629-35.
107Freiman MR, Clark JA, Slatore CG, Gould MK, Woloshin S, Schwartz LM, et al. Patients' knowledge, beliefs, and distress associated with detection and evaluation of incidental pulmonary nodules for cancer: Results from a multicenter survey. J Thorac Oncol 2016;11:700-8.
108Slatore CG, Golden SE, Ganzini L, Wiener RS, Au DH. Distress and patient-centered communication among veterans with incidental (not screen-detected) pulmonary nodules. A cohort study. Ann Am Thorac Soc 2015;12:184-92.
109Wiener RS, Gould MK, Woloshin S, Schwartz LM, Clark JA. What do you mean, a spot? A qualitative analysis of patients' reactions to discussions with their physicians about pulmonary nodules. Chest 2013;143:672-7.
110Shin KE, Lee KS, Yi CA, Chung MJ, Shin MH, Choi YH, et al. Subcentimeter lung nodules stable for 2 years at LDCT: Long-term follow-up using volumetry. Respirology 2014;19:921-8.
111Revel MP, Merlin A, Peyrard S, Triki R, Couchon S, Chatellier G, et al. Software volumetric evaluation of doubling times for differentiating benign versus malignant pulmonary nodules. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2006;187:135-42.
112Korst RJ, Lee BE, Krinsky GA, Rutledge JR. The utility of automated volumetric growth analysis in a dedicated pulmonary nodule clinic. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2011;142:372-7.
113Ko JP, Berman EJ, Kaur M, Babb JS, Bomsztyk E, Greenberg AK, et al. Pulmonary nodules: Growth rate assessment in patients by using serial CT and three-dimensional volumetry. Radiology 2012;262:662-71.
114Han D, Heuvelmans MA, Oudkerk M. Volume versus diameter assessment of small pulmonary nodules in CT lung cancer screening. Transl Lung Cancer Res 2017;6:52-61.
115Herold CJ, Bankier AA, Fleischmann D. Lung metastases. Eur Radiol 1996;6:596-606.
116Henschke CI, Yip R, Smith JP, Wolf AS, Flores RM, Liang M, et al. CT screening for lung cancer: Part-solid nodules in baseline and annual repeat rounds. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2016;207:1176-84.
117Ikeda K, Awai K, Mori T, Kawanaka K, Yamashita Y, Nomori H, et al. Differential diagnosis of ground-glass opacity nodules: CT number analysis by three-dimensional computerized quantification. Chest 2007;132:984-90.
118Takashima S, Maruyama Y, Hasegawa M, Yamanda T, Honda T, Kadoya M, et al. CT findings and progression of small peripheral lung neoplasms having a replacement growth pattern. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2003;180:817-26.
119Lee KH, Goo JM, Park SJ, Wi JY, Chung DH, Go H, et al. Correlation between the size of the solid component on thin-section CT and the invasive component on pathology in small lung adenocarcinomas manifesting as ground-glass nodules. J Thorac Oncol 2014;9:74-82.
120Cohen JG, Reymond E, Lederlin M, Medici M, Lantuejoul S, Laurent F, et al. Differentiating pre – And minimally invasive from invasive adenocarcinoma using CT-features in persistent pulmonary part-solid nodules in caucasian patients. Eur J Radiol 2015;84:738-44.
121Saji H, Matsubayashi J, Akata S, Shimada Y, Kato Y, Kudo Y, et al. Correlation between whole tumor size and solid component size on high-resolution computed tomography in the prediction of the degree of pathologic malignancy and the prognostic outcome in primary lung adenocarcinoma. Acta Radiol 2015;56:1187-95.
122Detterbeck FC, Homer RJ. Approach to the ground-glass nodule. Clin Chest Med 2011;32:799-810.
123Heidinger BH, Anderson KR, Nemec U, Costa DB, Gangadharan SP, VanderLaan PA, et al. Lung adenocarcinoma manifesting as pure ground-glass nodules: Correlating CT size, volume, density, and roundness with histopathologic invasion and size. J Thorac Oncol 2017;12:1288-98.
124Nakata M, Sawada S, Saeki H, Takashima S, Mogami H, Teramoto N, et al. Prospective study of thoracoscopic limited resection for ground-glass opacity selected by computed tomography. Ann Thorac Surg 2003;75:1601-5.
125Cho J, Ko SJ, Kim SJ, Lee YJ, Park JS, Cho YJ, et al. Surgical resection of nodular ground-glass opacities without percutaneous needle aspiration or biopsy. BMC Cancer 2014;14:838.
126Park CM, Goo JM, Kim TJ, Lee HJ, Lee KW, Lee CH, et al. Pulmonary nodular ground-glass opacities in patients with extrapulmonary cancers: What is their clinical significance and how can we determine whether they are malignant or benign lesions? Chest 2008;133:1402-9.
127Lee SM, Park CM, Goo JM, Lee HJ, Wi JY, Kang CH, et al. Invasive pulmonary adenocarcinomas versus preinvasive lesions appearing as ground-glass nodules: Differentiation by using CT features. Radiology 2013;268:265-73.
128Jin X, Zhao SH, Gao J, Wang DJ, Wu J, Wu CC, et al. CT characteristics and pathological implications of early stage (T1N0M0) lung adenocarcinoma with pure ground-glass opacity. Eur Radiol 2015;25:2532-40.
129Yang W, Sun Y, Fang W, Qian F, Ye J, Chen Q, et al. High-resolution computed tomography features distinguishing benign and malignant lesions manifesting as persistent solitary subsolid nodules. Clin Lung Cancer 2018;19:e75-83.
130Infante M, Berghmans T, Heuvelmans MA, Hillerdal G, Oudkerk M. Slow-growing lung cancer as an emerging entity: From screening to clinical management. Eur Respir J 2013;42:1706-22.
131Kim TJ, Park CM, Goo JM, Lee KW. Is there a role for FDG PET in the management of lung cancer manifesting predominantly as ground-glass opacity? AJR Am J Roentgenol 2012;198:83-8.
132Veronesi G, Travaini LL, Maisonneuve P, Rampinelli C, Bertolotti R, Spaggiari L, et al. Positron emission tomography in the diagnostic work-up of screening-detected lung nodules. Eur Respir J 2015;45:501-10.
133Shimizu K, Ikeda N, Tsuboi M, Hirano T, Kato H. Percutaneous CT-guided fine needle aspiration for lung cancer smaller than 2 cm and revealed by ground-glass opacity at CT. Lung Cancer 2006;51:173-9.
134De Filippo M, Saba L, Concari G, Nizzoli R, Ferrari L, Tiseo M, et al. Predictive factors of diagnostic accuracy of CT-guided transthoracic fine-needle aspiration for solid noncalcified, subsolid and mixed pulmonary nodules. Radiol Med 2013;118:1071-81.
135Sato Y, Fujimoto D, Morimoto T, Uehara K, Nagata K, Sakanoue I, et al. Natural history and clinical characteristics of multiple pulmonary nodules with ground glass opacity. Respirology 2017;22:1615-21.