COMPARATIVE STUDY
JOURNAL ARTICLE
RESEARCH SUPPORT, N.I.H., EXTRAMURAL
VALIDATION STUDY
Add like
Add dislike
Add to saved papers

Validation of two models to estimate the probability of malignancy in patients with solitary pulmonary nodules.

Thorax 2008 April
BACKGROUND: Effective strategies for managing patients with solitary pulmonary nodules (SPN) depend critically on the pre-test probability of malignancy.

OBJECTIVE: To validate two previously developed models that estimate the probability that an indeterminate SPN is malignant, based on clinical characteristics and radiographic findings.

METHODS: Data on age, smoking and cancer history, nodule size, location and spiculation were collected retrospectively from the medical records of 151 veterans (145 men, 6 women; age range 39-87 years) with an SPN measuring 7-30 mm (inclusive) and a final diagnosis established by histopathology or 2-year follow-up. Each patient's final diagnosis was compared with the probability of malignancy predicted by two models: one developed by investigators at the Mayo Clinic and the other developed from patients enrolled in a VA Cooperative Study. The accuracy of each model was assessed by calculating areas under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve and the models were calibrated by comparing predicted and observed rates of malignancy.

RESULTS: The area under the ROC curve for the Mayo Clinic model (0.80; 95% CI 0.72 to 0.88) was higher than that of the VA model (0.73; 95% CI 0.64 to 0.82), but this difference was not statistically significant (Delta = 0.07; 95% CI -0.03 to 0.16). Calibration curves showed that the probability of malignancy was underestimated by the Mayo Clinic model and overestimated by the VA model.

CONCLUSIONS: Two existing prediction models are sufficiently accurate to guide decisions about the selection and interpretation of subsequent diagnostic tests in patients with SPNs, although clinicians should also consider the prevalence of malignancy in their practice setting when choosing a model.

Full text links

We have located links that may give you full text access.
Can't access the paper?
Try logging in through your university/institutional subscription. For a smoother one-click institutional access experience, please use our mobile app.

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

Mobile app image

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.

By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.

Your Privacy Choices Toggle icon

You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app