• Caroline M Godfrey, Maren E Shipe, Valerie F Welty, Amelia W Maiga, Melinda C Aldrich, Chandler Montgomery, Jerod Crockett, Laszlo T Vaszar, Shawn Regis, James M Isbell, Otis B Rickman, Rhonda Pinkerman, Eric S Lambright, Jonathan C Nesbitt, Fabien Maldonado, Jeffrey D Blume, Stephen A Deppen, and Eric L Grogan.
• Department of Thoracic Surgery, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN.
• Chest. 2023 Nov 1; 164 (5): 130513141305-1314.

BackgroundAppropriate risk stratification of indeterminate pulmonary nodules (IPNs) is necessary to direct diagnostic evaluation. Currently available models were developed in populations with lower cancer prevalence than that seen in thoracic surgery and pulmonology clinics and usually do not allow for missing data. We updated and expanded the Thoracic Research Evaluation and Treatment (TREAT) model into a more generalized, robust approach for lung cancer prediction in patients referred for specialty evaluation.Research QuestionCan clinic-level differences in nodule evaluation be incorporated to improve lung cancer prediction accuracy in patients seeking immediate specialty evaluation compared with currently available models?Study Design And MethodsClinical and radiographic data on patients with IPNs from six sites (N = 1,401) were collected retrospectively and divided into groups by clinical setting: pulmonary nodule clinic (n = 374; cancer prevalence, 42%), outpatient thoracic surgery clinic (n = 553; cancer prevalence, 73%), or inpatient surgical resection (n = 474; cancer prevalence, 90%). A new prediction model was developed using a missing data-driven pattern submodel approach. Discrimination and calibration were estimated with cross-validation and were compared with the original TREAT, Mayo Clinic, Herder, and Brock models. Reclassification was assessed with bias-corrected clinical net reclassification index and reclassification plots.ResultsTwo-thirds of patients had missing data; nodule growth and fluorodeoxyglucose-PET scan avidity were missing most frequently. The TREAT version 2.0 mean area under the receiver operating characteristic curve across missingness patterns was 0.85 compared with that of the original TREAT (0.80), Herder (0.73), Mayo Clinic (0.72), and Brock (0.68) models with improved calibration. The bias-corrected clinical net reclassification index was 0.23.InterpretationThe TREAT 2.0 model is more accurate and better calibrated for predicting lung cancer in high-risk IPNs than the Mayo, Herder, or Brock models. Nodule calculators such as TREAT 2.0 that account for varied lung cancer prevalence and that consider missing data may provide more accurate risk stratification for patients seeking evaluation at specialty nodule evaluation clinics.Published by Elsevier Inc.

18 keywords...

hide…