4 ms·
False positives will be much more rare in practice with the new guidelines used (Lung RADS) which cut false positives by 50% or more while mostly preserving sen
by dontreact 7y ago
False positives will be much more rare in practice with the new guidelines used (Lung RADS) which cut false positives by 50% or more while mostly preserving sensitivity.
That doctor should really update his diagram to reflect the current standard of care for lung cancer screening. Using the false positive rate from the 2011 study is intellectually dishonest!
In addition the amount of lung cancer deaths prevented was doubled (!!) in a recent European study by tracking patients for 5 years instead of 3 years.
- wswope 7y agoHonestly curious: are most radiologists actually following guidelines like Lung RADS in practice, especially just after publication? Is it part of any standardized CME? It's my impression that there's often a big gap between ACR best practices and what's happening on the ground in most places, which was a key point the doctor in the article was making.
- riahi 7y agoAdoption of Lung-Rads is essentially required to be designated as an ACR screening center. To be reimbursed for Lung Cancer Screening, you must provide registry data to CMS (the registry is run by the ACR). It's not codified into Federal Law, but if reimbursement requires a Lung-Rads code, then it's more or less mandated. I'd argue out of all the fields of medicine, Radiology is pretty quick to adopt new technology or reporting schemes "on the ground". See the proliferation of Lung-Rads, TI-Rads, Cad-Rads, LI-Rads, PI-Rads, etc.
- wswope 7y agoThat's good to know, thank you for the response!
- caycep 7y agoyeah, the cost benefit ratio of scans probably would improve significantly w/ less misinterpretation of scans...radiologists tend to notoriously over-call findings for liability reasons, and most MD's don't look at the images, they just read what the radiologist wrote.