Indolent Potentially Inconsequential XXXX in the Pittsburgh Lung Screening Study (PLuSS).

@entity5 @entity1 @entity2 @entity420
INTRODUCTION: The finding of indolent, potentially inconsequential @entity5 (overdiagnosis) is inherent to @entity5 screening in general, and there is a growing body of literature about this concept in @entity2 screening. We report on indolent, potentially inconsequential @entity2 in the Pittsburgh Lung Screening Study (PLuSS) population screened for @entity2 with annual low-dose CT (LDCT). METHODS: We identified 93 subjects with screen-detected prevalence @entity5 in PLuSS. We defined indolent potentially inconsequential @entity5 as stage I prevalence @entity2 cases had volumetric doubling time (VDT) >400 days (when available) and standardized uptake value (SUVmax) on PET scan  <= 1 (when available). RESULTS: Approximately, 18.5% (n=17) of all 93 screen-detected prevalence @entity2 in PLuSS were indolent potentially inconsequential @entity5 . All such @entity5 except for one were @entity420 by histology. Median @entity5 size of such @entity5 at the time of final diagnosis was 10 mm (range 7-22 mm). Median doubling time was significantly longer in this group when compared to the rest of the prevalence stage 1 @entity5 (752 days versus 284.5 days). CONCLUSION: Although the precise definition may vary, the existence of indolent, potentially inconsequential @entity5 in @entity2 screening is real. Clinicians involved in managing @entity1 with LDCT detected slow growing nodules, especially with SUV <=1 on PET scan, should consider the possibility of indolent potentially inconsequential @entity5 in the longitudinal management of these nodules.
