Skip to main content

Main menu

  • HOME
  • ONLINE FIRST
  • CURRENT ISSUE
  • ALL ISSUES
  • AUTHORS & REVIEWERS
  • SUBSCRIBE
  • BJGP LIFE
  • MORE
    • About BJGP
    • Conference
    • Advertising
    • eLetters
    • Alerts
    • Video
    • Audio
    • Librarian information
    • Resilience
    • COVID-19 Clinical Solutions
  • RCGP
    • BJGP for RCGP members
    • BJGP Open
    • RCGP eLearning
    • InnovAIT Journal
    • Jobs and careers

User menu

  • Subscriptions
  • Alerts
  • Log in

Search

  • Advanced search
British Journal of General Practice
Intended for Healthcare Professionals
  • RCGP
    • BJGP for RCGP members
    • BJGP Open
    • RCGP eLearning
    • InnovAIT Journal
    • Jobs and careers
  • Subscriptions
  • Alerts
  • Log in
  • Follow bjgp on Twitter
  • Visit bjgp on Facebook
  • Blog
  • Listen to BJGP podcast
  • Subscribe BJGP on YouTube
Intended for Healthcare Professionals
British Journal of General Practice

Advanced Search

  • HOME
  • ONLINE FIRST
  • CURRENT ISSUE
  • ALL ISSUES
  • AUTHORS & REVIEWERS
  • SUBSCRIBE
  • BJGP LIFE
  • MORE
    • About BJGP
    • Conference
    • Advertising
    • eLetters
    • Alerts
    • Video
    • Audio
    • Librarian information
    • Resilience
    • COVID-19 Clinical Solutions
Research

Sensitivity of chest X-ray for detecting lung cancer in people presenting with symptoms: a systematic review

Stephen H Bradley, Sarah Abraham, Matthew EJ Callister, Adam Grice, William T Hamilton, Rocio Rodriguez Lopez, Bethany Shinkins and Richard D Neal
British Journal of General Practice 2019; 69 (689): e827-e835. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3399/bjgp19X706853
Stephen H Bradley
Academic Unit of Primary Care, University of Leeds, Leeds.
Roles: Clinical research fellow
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Sarah Abraham
Test Evaluation Group;
Roles: Health economist
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Matthew EJ Callister
Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Leeds.
Roles: Consultant respiratory physician
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Adam Grice
Academic Unit of Primary Care, University of Leeds, Leeds.
Roles: GP academic fellow
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
William T Hamilton
University of Exeter, Exeter.
Roles: Professor of primary care diagnostics
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Rocio Rodriguez Lopez
Test Evaluation Group, Academic Unit of Health Economics, University of Leeds, Leeds.
Roles: Information specialist
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Bethany Shinkins
Test Evaluation Group, Academic Unit of Health Economics, University of Leeds, Leeds.
Roles: Associate professor
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Richard D Neal
Academic Unit of Primary Care, University of Leeds, Leeds.
Roles: Professor of primary care oncology
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info
  • eLetters
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

Background Despite increasing use of computed tomography (CT), chest X-ray remains the first-line investigation for suspected lung cancer in primary care in the UK. No systematic review evidence exists as to the sensitivity of chest X-ray for detecting lung cancer in people presenting with symptoms.

Aim To estimate the sensitivity of chest X-ray for detecting lung cancer in symptomatic people.

Design and setting A systematic review was conducted to determine the sensitivity of chest X-ray for the detection of lung cancer.

Method Databases including MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library were searched; a grey literature search was also performed.

Results A total of 21 studies met the eligibility criteria. Almost all were of poor quality. Only one study had the diagnostic accuracy of chest X-ray as its primary objective. Most articles were case studies with a high risk of bias. Several were drawn from non-representative groups, for example, specific presentations, histological subtypes, or comorbidities. Only three studies had a low risk of bias. Two primary care studies reported sensitivities of 76.8% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 64.5 to 84.2%) and 79.3% (95% CI = 67.6 to 91.0%). One secondary care study reported a sensitivity of 79.7% (95% CI = 72.7 to 86.8%).

Conclusion Though there is a paucity of evidence, the highest-quality studies suggest that the sensitivity of chest X-ray for symptomatic lung cancer is only 77% to 80%. GPs should consider if further investigation is necessary in high-risk patients who have had a negative chest X-ray.

  • diagnostic imaging
  • early diagnosis
  • lung cancer
  • primary care
  • X-rays

INTRODUCTION

Lung cancer is the single largest cause of cancer mortality both worldwide1 and in the UK.2 Compared with many other cancers, improvements in lung cancer survival over recent decades have been modest. The age-standardised 5-year survival rate has only increased from approximately 5% to 10% since 1971,2 compared with improvements from 53% to 87% in the 5-year survival rate for breast cancer in the same period.3

Diagnosis of lung cancer at earlier stages of disease is associated with improved survival. Optimising early detection is therefore considered an important strategy in improving outcomes.4 Chest X-ray is comparatively cheap, accessible,5 and has a low radiation dose.6 It remains the first-line investigation for lung cancer in primary care and the most common radiological route to diagnosis.7 This is reflected in current National Institute for Health and Care Excellence lung cancer guidelines, which recommend chest X-ray for initial evaluation in all patients, aside from those aged >40 years who have unexplained haemoptysis.8 Outcomes for lung cancer in the UK remain poor compared to other advanced economies,9 where modalities such as computed tomography (CT) are used more extensively.10

Despite its predominance in guidelines and clinical practice, no systematic review has determined the sensitivity of chest X-ray alone for lung cancer in patients presenting with symptoms, which is the aim of the present study.

METHOD

A systematic review was conducted in June 2017 and updated in December 2018.

The sensitivity of chest X-ray for lung cancer was estimated by identifying studies that:

  • reported the number of patients who were investigated with chest X-ray owing to symptoms in the year before their diagnosis of lung cancer; and

  • reported the contemporaneous results of the chest X-rays.

Screening studies were not included. The authors registered the study protocol with PROSPERO.11 An amendment to the protocol was subsequently made to correct an error. In addition, articles were screened based on their title and abstract, rather than on the basis of title only, as reported in the protocol.

Search strategy

In July 2017 the authors searched CINAHL, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR), Cochrane Controlled Register of Trials (CENTRAL), Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE), Health Technology Assessment (HTA), NHS Economic Evaluation Database (NHS EED), EMBASE, MEDLINE, MEDLINE in process, MEDLINE Epub ahead of print, PubMed, and Science Citation Index (SCI). These resources were searched with no language restrictions from 1999 using a search strategy with subject headings and free-text words for the concepts ‘chest X-ray’ and ‘lung cancer’. Only studies published after 1999 were included in order to ensure that evidence reflected contemporary radiological technology and practice. The searches were peer reviewed and updated in December 2018 in all the databases. The full search strategies are available from the authors on request. The reference lists of included articles were screened. The websites of several organisations12–26 were manually searched to identify any potentially eligible reports, guidelines, and audits (grey literature search).

Chest X-ray remains the first-line investigation for suspected lung cancer in the UK. Outcomes for lung cancer are relatively poor compared with the healthcare systems of many other advanced economies, which make more extensive use of other imaging modalities such as computed tomography (CT). This systematic review found that there is limited high-quality evidence published on the diagnostic accuracy of chest X-ray. The few high-quality studies identified suggest that chest X-ray misses (at least initially) lung cancer in >20% of people. As earlier diagnosis is closely associated with improved survival, it is therefore possible that the use of chest X-ray in UK practice may delay the diagnosis of lung cancer in some patients. These findings support calls to increase open-access CT for GPs, but, given resource restrictions and the potential to cause harm through overdiagnosis, further research is required to help identify which patients who have had a non-diagnostic chest X-ray should be referred for additional investigation.

How this fits in

Inclusion and exclusion criteria

The authors considered any study that reported the number of adult patients who had a chest X-ray following a symptomatic presentation to a clinician in the year before diagnosis with lung cancer. The period of 1 year was selected with reference to estimates of detectable pre-clinical phase of lung cancer (mean sojourn time),27 estimated to be between 5.5 months28 and 2.2 years.29 Studies where it was unclear if the duration between chest X-ray and diagnosis was <1 year were excluded. Studies based on screening populations were excluded. Studies of patients aged <18 years, other intrathoracic malignancies such as mesothelioma and lymphoma, metastatic lung disease from a non-lung cancer primary tumour, and imaging undertaken for staging or diagnostic surveillance for recurrent lung cancer were also excluded. In order to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of chest X-ray in clinical practice, the authors excluded studies that examined the proportion of chest X-rays where lesions were ‘missed’ but identified in retrospect.

Chest X-rays were considered positive if any abnormality considered suspicious for lung cancer was noted at the time of reporting and were considered negative if no features suspicious of lung cancer were noted at the time of reporting. Where the findings of chest X-ray were not reported in a way that could be classified as positive or negative according to this definition, the authors reported the presence or absence of abnormalities on the chest X-rays.

The authors did not exclude any studies based on the reference standard used.

Study selection

Titles and abstracts of all studies were screened with reference to the inclusion and exclusion criteria. A random 20% of all titles and abstracts were independently screened by a second author. As it was anticipated that relevant data in some cases would have been reported incidentally, rather than as a primary finding of studies, the reviewers maintained a low threshold for selecting citations for full-text review. In the case of disagreements or uncertainty, a third reviewer was consulted. A full-text review of all selected texts was undertaken by the first author to determine final eligibility.

Data extraction

Data from included studies were extracted using a form including demographics and presenting symptoms of participants, sensitivity of chest X-ray, sample size, setting, for example, primary or secondary care, and the reference standard implemented to determine true disease status.

Analysis

The outcome was the sensitivity of chest X-ray for the detection of lung cancer. This was determined by evaluating the stated numbers of patients in each study who presented with symptoms, those who had had chest X-ray in the year before diagnosis with lung cancer, and for those for whom the chest X-ray had yielded a positive result. Ninety-five per cent confidence intervals (CI) for each within-study sensitivity estimate were also calculated. Meta-analysis was planned to be undertaken if possible. In the event of high between-study heterogeneity or a low quality of eligible studies, the authors planned to proceed with a descriptive synthesis of the studies only. A modified version of the QUADAS-2 tool30 for diagnostic accuracy studies was used for quality assessment.

RESULTS

The selection of the 21 studies31–51 included in this review is presented in the PRISMA diagram in Figure 1. Though 987 citations were selected for full-text review, 187 citations could not be obtained despite attempts to contact authors by email. The majority of the citations that were not obtained were in non-English publications (n = 119, 63.6%), while a substantial proportion (n = 90, 48.1%) of these citations reported no clinical data at all in their abstracts, but were selected for full-text review owing to the comprehensive approach taken by the reviewers.

Figure 1.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 1.

PRISMA diagram of study inclusion.

The most common reason for exclusion (n = 739) was that the study did not contain research or data that were pertinent to the study question. This included a large number (n = 117) of general texts, such as reviews, correspondence, and educational articles that did not address the study question.

Some citations (n = 59) were excluded because the interpretation of the imaging was undertaken retrospectively, when the diagnosis of lung cancer was already known. Seventeen studies were not eligible because patients had been chosen for inclusion on the basis of a chest X-ray that was known to be positive or negative for lung cancer. Four studies were ineligible because they evaluated individual performance at interpreting chest X-rays using films, where the presence or absence of lesions was already known to the study investigators. Other studies were excluded because: the cancers considered were not a primary lung cancer (n = 44), they were case reports of a single patient (n = 53), the duration between chest X-ray and diagnosis was >1 year or unclear (n = 28), they were drawn from screening data (n = 22), or patients were <18 years of age (n = 2).

Given the high heterogeneity between studies included and their low quality, meta-analysis was not appropriate.

Summary of eligible studies

A final total of 21 studies met the inclusion criteria (Table 1). The number of patients in each study varied notably (range n = 2 to n = 208). Study estimates of sensitivity ranged from 40% to 100%. Most of the studies were case series. Only one study had the primary objective of estimating the diagnostic accuracy of chest X-ray for lung cancer.43

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 1.

Summary of studies included in reviewa

Many of the studies only included particular subgroups of the relevant patient population, such as atypical tumour histology, or specific comorbidities and symptom presentations. Only four studies41,43,44,50 were based on representative populations of patients with lung cancer, rather than particular subgroups.

A population-based observational case series identified all patients in the Danish county of Aarhus who had a diagnosis of lung cancer during a 6-month period in 2003.41 The purpose of the study was to explore reasons for diagnostic delay in lung cancer. Of 58 patients who had a chest X-ray arranged from general practice, 46 (79.3%; 95% CI = 67.6 to 91.0) had chest X-rays that suggested the possibility of lung cancer, including two cases in which infection was identified with a recommendation for repeat imaging after an appropriate interval. In the remaining 12 (20.7%), chest X-rays were reported as ‘raised no suspicion of lung cancer’.

An English retrospective cohort study examined chest X-ray results of 164 patients from general practices in a primary care trust diagnosed with lung cancer between January 1998 and September 2002 (patients aged ≥40 years).43 In over three-quarters (n = 126, 76.8%; 95% CI = 64.5 to 84.2%) the chest X-ray indicated the possibility of lung cancer, while 38 (23.17%) patients had a ‘negative’ chest X-ray. Of the 38 ‘negative’ chest X-rays, 21 (12.8%) were categorised as abnormal but not suspicious of malignancy, while 17 (10.4%) were reported as ‘normal’.

A retrospective case note review of all patients diagnosed with lung cancer in a Spanish centre from January 2001 to September 2006 included 102 patients who had a chest X-ray before diagnosis.44 An ‘abnormality’ was present on 97 (95.1%) of the patients’ chest X-rays; however, this could not be considered synonymous with ‘sensitivity’ as the authors did not indicate which of the abnormalities were considered to be suspicious for lung cancer when they were reported. The abnormalities were nodules or masses in 53 cases (52.0%), pleural effusions in 16 (15.7%), an enlarged hilum in 16 (15.7%), multiple pulmonary metastasis in six (5.9%), a widened mediastinum in four (3.9%), and an interstitial infiltration in two (2.0%).

Finally, a conference abstract reported a retrospective review of chest X-ray reports in a secondary care setting in the Republic of Ireland.50 The authors identified 126 (79.7%, 95% CI = 72.7 to 86.8%) of 158 patients as likely to have a lung malignancy and/or advised to have repeat imaging. A further 23 (14.6%) patients had a chest X-ray in which the authors refer to ‘lesion not identified’ and nine (5.7%) in which an abnormality was identified but no follow-up recommended.

Quality assessment

Assessment of quality was undertaken by two of the authors using a modified version of the QUADAS-2 tool,30 with disagreements between reviewers resolved through discussion. Three studies41,43,50 were deemed to have a low risk of bias. A further study was deemed to have a low risk of bias in the selection of patients;44 however, the reporting of chest X-ray result as normal or abnormal, rather than suspicious or not suspicious for lung cancer, introduced bias that limited applicability for this review. The majority of studies (n = 17, 81.0%) were deemed to have a high risk of bias. In particular, these studies included distinct subgroups of the relevant patient population, such as atypical tumour histology, or specific comorbidities and symptom presentations.

DISCUSSION

Summary

This systematic review identified three studies that reported sensitivity of chest X-ray and that had a low risk of bias. The sensitivity estimates for these studies were: 79.3% (95% CI = 67.6 to 91.0%),41 76.8% (95% CI = 64.5 to 84.2%),43 and 79.7% (95% CI = 72.7 to 86.8%).50

These results suggest that chest X-ray fails to identify lung cancer (at least initially) in >20% of people who are subsequently diagnosed with lung cancer. All three of these studies were conducted in countries with broadly similar primary care systems (Denmark, England, Republic of Ireland). Two of these studies41,43 were derived from primary care settings and, though the remaining study was from a secondary care radiology department,50 it is likely that many of the chest X-rays performed resulted from primary care referrals.

Strengths and limitations

This review featured a sensitive and comprehensive search of bibliographic databases and grey literature in order to identify published and unpublished sources. This study is highly relevant both to national cancer policy and everyday clinical practice. With approximately 46 700 new diagnoses of lung cancer in the UK per year,2 of which approximately 56% are diagnosed following referral for chest X-ray,7 these findings suggest that false-negative chest X-rays could contribute to a delayed diagnosis for several thousand patients each year.

Diagnostic accuracy was the stated primary outcome of only one study; in most included studies a value of sensitivity was estimated from data reported. These studies were therefore at high risk of bias. Indeed, none conformed to the conventional standards of diagnostic accuracy studies.52 While the best available evidence was selected for analysis, many other eligible studies were of poor quality making meta-analysis inappropriate. In order to identify all relevant evidence, the present review included studies from different settings. The different disease prevalence in primary and secondary care is known to impact on test performance,53 which could not be accounted for in this review. However, the consistency in the sensitivity estimates from the higher-quality studies is striking. Due to the large number of citations, selection was peer reviewed in only 20% of cases and data extraction was conducted by one researcher. Notably, 187 citations could not be obtained, reflecting the broad search strategy used and the low threshold used for selection for full-text review. Only about half of those articles (n = 97, 51.2%) contained any study data in their abstracts.

Comparison with existing literature

Several studies have evaluated the performance of chest X-ray by re-examining radiographs in the light of a known lung cancer diagnosis. Although such studies were not eligible for this review, that literature provides an important context. Notably, a Dutch retrospective review of radiographs of non-small-cell lung cancer cases (n = 495) reported that 19% had a nodular lesion that had been ‘missed’.54

It is possible that lung cancers may not have been present when imaging occurred (interval cancers). A large screening trial concluded that, of those cancers that were not detected on screening chest X-ray but subsequently diagnosed within 1 year, the lung cancer was not visible, even in retrospect, in 65% of cases.55

Separate literature has explored the role of ‘observer error’ in failing to recognise cancers that were evident in retrospect. Inexperience, poor technique in visual scanning of the image, failures in recognising abnormalities, and of decision making along with lapses of concentration have all been identified as factors contributing to missed lung cancers on chest X-ray.56,57

Other studies have considered the characteristics of lesions, which may make them less identifiable. Smaller tumours are identified much less frequently; lesions measuring <1 cm in diameter are particularly likely to be missed on chest X-ray compared with other modalities such as CT.54

Location is also important, with missed lung cancers frequently located in the upper lobes54,58–61 or obscured by overlying anatomy such as ribs, lung vasculature, and the heart. Many missed cancers are located in the hilar regions, where the confluence of complex anatomy makes diagnosis particularly challenging.56 The technical quality of the radiograph itself and the positioning of the patient are additional factors that can influence the likelihood of successful detection of lung cancer on chest X-ray.62

Implications for research and practice

Chest X-ray retains a predominant role in UK clinical practice and guidance for the diagnosis of lung cancer.63 Most lung cancers are diagnosed following suspicious findings on chest X-ray7 and increasing the use of chest X-ray in primary care has been associated with diagnosis at an earlier stage and reduced mortality.64 However, this review suggests that chest X-ray may have a false-negative rate of at least 20%. GPs should take limited reassurance from a non-diagnostic chest X-ray and consider additional imaging or referral of those at high risk, or re-imaging in the face of continuing symptoms. If chest X-ray were a novel technology, it is debatable whether the available evidence would be deemed sufficient to support its implementation as a diagnostic test for lung cancer. In order to improve the UK’s lung cancer outcomes, diagnostic strategies may necessitate widening access to more definitive modalities, such as CT. Although this study has demonstrated a significant false-negative rate for chest X-ray, it is important to recognise that the benefits of increased rates of CT investigation must be balanced against known harms including overdiagnosis and false-positives.65 Future work is required to determine which patients can be reasonably followed up by safety netting following an unremarkable chest X-ray and which patients require further investigation.

Acknowledgments

The authors are extremely grateful to Monica Koo, Marie Bourne, Nazia Ahmed, Sibel Saya, and Dorota Karasek for their assistance in translation of non-English studies; Judy Wright and Natalie King for their advice regarding the systematic review; and Tracey Farragher for providing additional advice regarding the design of the study. The authors would also like to thank the many authors who kindly provided additional information in order to determine eligibility of their studies for this review.

Notes

Funding

Stephen H Bradley and Bethany Shinkins are funded by the multi-institutional CanTest Collaborative, which is funded by Cancer Research UK (reference number: C8640/A23385). Richard D Neal and William T Hamilton are Associate Directors of the multi-institutional CanTest Collaborative, which is funded by Cancer Research UK (reference number: C8640/A23385).

Ethical approval

Ethical approval is not required.

Provenance

Freely submitted; externally peer reviewed.

Competing interests

Matthew EJ Callister is the chief Investigator for Yorkshire Lung Screening Trial and co-Investigator for Yorkshire Enhanced Stop Smoking Study. Both studies are funded by Yorkshire Cancer Research. The other authors have no competing interests.

Discuss this article

Contribute and read comments about this article: bjgp.org/letters

  • Received February 7, 2019.
  • Revision requested March 17, 2019.
  • Accepted May 2, 2019.
  • © British Journal of General Practice 2019

REFERENCES

  1. 1.↵
    1. Ferlay J,
    2. Soerjomataram I,
    3. Dikshit R,
    4. et al.
    (2015) Cancer incidence and mortality worldwide: sources, methods and major patterns in GLOBOCAN 2012. Int J Cancer 136(5):E359–E386.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  2. 2.↵
    1. Cancer Research UK
    (2019) Lung cancer statistics. https://www.cancerresearchuk.org/health-professional/cancer-statistics/statistics-by-cancer-type/lung-cancer (accessed 19 Sep 2019).
  3. 3.↵
    1. Cancer Research UK
    (2014) Breast cancer survival statistics. https://www.cancerresearchuk.org/health-professional/cancer-statistics/statistics-by-cancer-type/breast-cancer/survival#heading-Two (accessed 19 Sep 2019).
  4. 4.↵
    1. Rubin G,
    2. Berendsen A,
    3. Crawford SM,
    4. et al.
    (2015) The expanding role of primary care in cancer control. Lancet Oncol 16(12):1231–1272.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. 5.↵
    1. Hamilton W
    (2010) Br J Gen Pract, Cancer diagnosis in primary care. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3399/bjgp10X483175.
  6. 6.↵
    1. Public Health England.
    (2008) Patient dose information: guidance; X-ray examinations. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/medical-radiation-patient-doses/patient-dose-information-guidance (accessed 19 Sep 2019).
  7. 7.↵
    1. Aslam R,
    2. Kennedy MP,
    3. Bhartia B,
    4. et al.
    (2018) The radiological route to diagnosis of lung cancer patients. Thorax 73(Suppl 4):A70–A71.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  8. 8.↵
    1. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence
    (2011) Lung cancer: diagnosis and management CG121 (NICE, London) https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/cg121/chapter/1-Guidance (accessed 19 Sep 2019).
  9. 9.↵
    1. Arnold M,
    2. Rutherford MJ,
    3. Bardot A,
    4. et al.
    (2019) Progress in cancer survival, mortality, and incidence in seven high-income countries 1995–2014 (ICBP SURVMARK-2): a population-based study. Lancet Oncol, https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(19)30456-5.
  10. 10.↵
    1. Eurostat, Statistics Explained.
    (2019) Healthcare resource statistics-technical resources and medical technology. https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Healthcare_resource_statistics_-_technical_resources_and_medical_technology#Availability_of_technical_resources_in_hospitals. (accessed Oct 2019).
  11. 11.↵
    1. Bradley S,
    2. Grice A,
    3. Lopez RR,
    4. et al.
    (2019) Diagnostic accuracy of low dose CT versus chest x-ray and false negative rates for chest x-ray in lung cancer. https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=69629 (accessed 19 Sep 2019).
  12. 12.↵
    1. Royal College of Radiologists.
    https://www.rcr.ac.uk (accessed 19 Sep 2019).
  13. 13.
    1. American College of Radiology
    , https://www.acr.org/ (accessed 19 Sep 2019).
  14. 14.
    1. American Society of Clinical Oncology.
    https://www.asco.org/ (accessed 19 Sep 2019).
  15. 15.
    1. ASTRO: American Society of Radiation Oncology.
    https://www.astro.org (accessed 19 Sep 2019).
  16. 16.
    1. British Institute of Radiology.
    https://bir.org.uk (accessed 19 Sep 2019).
  17. 17.
    1. European Society for Radiotherapy Oncology.
    https://www.estro.org (accessed 19 Sep 2019).
  18. 18.
    1. European Society for Medical Oncology.
    https://www.esmo.org (accessed 19 Sep 2019).
  19. 19.
    1. International Society of Radiology.
    http://isradiology.org/2017/isr/index.php (accessed 19 Sep 2019).
  20. 20.
    1. International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer.
    https://www.iaslc.org (accessed 19 Sep 2019).
  21. 21.
    1. British Thoracic Society.
    https://www.brit-thoracic.org.uk (accessed 19 Sep 2019).
  22. 22.
    1. British Thoracic Oncology Group.
    https://www.btog.org (accessed 19 Sep 2019).
  23. 23.
    1. Public Health England
    (2016) National Cancer Registration Analysis Service, https://www.gov.uk/guidance/national-cancer-registration-and-analysis-service-ncras (accessed 19 Sep 2019).
  24. 24.
    1. European Respiratory Society.
    https://www.ersnet.org (accessed 19 Sep 2019).
  25. 25.
    1. American Thoracic Society.
    http://www.thoracic.org (accessed 19 Sep 2019).
  26. 26.↵
    1. Cancer and Primary Care Research International Network.
    http://www.ca-pri.org (accessed 19 Sep 2019).
  27. 27.↵
    1. Detterbeck FC,
    2. Gibson CJ
    (2008) Turning gray: the natural history of lung cancer over time. J Thorac Oncol 3(7):781–792.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  28. 28.↵
    1. Chien C-R,
    2. Lai M-S,
    3. Chen TH-H
    (2008) Estimation of mean sojourn time for lung cancer by chest X-ray screening with a Bayesian approach. Lung Cancer 62(2):215–220.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  29. 29.↵
    1. Wu D,
    2. Erwin D,
    3. Rosner GL
    (2011) Sojurn time and lead time projection in lung cancer screening. Lung Cancer 72(3):322–326.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  30. 30.↵
    1. Whiting PF,
    2. Rutjes AWS,
    3. Westwood ME,
    4. et al.
    (2011) QUADAS-2: a revised tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies. Ann Intern Med 155(8):529–536.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  31. 31.↵
    1. Hamada K,
    2. Tokuyama T,
    3. Okamoto Y,
    4. et al.
    (1999) A clinicopathological study of lung cancer patients with occupational exposure to chrysotile asbestos fibers. Intern Med 38(10):780–784.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  32. 32.
    1. Tanaka M,
    2. Sawada M,
    3. Inase N,
    4. et al.
    (1999) Cases of gingival metastasis from lung cancer and a review of the literature. (In Japanese). Japanese Journal of Lung Cancer 39(3):323–329.
    OpenUrl
  33. 33.
    1. Bini A,
    2. Ansaloni L,
    3. Grani G,
    4. et al.
    (2001) Pulmonary blastoma: report of two cases. Sur Today 31(5):438–442.
    OpenUrl
  34. 34.
    1. Lee HR,
    2. Lennon VA,
    3. Camilleri M,
    4. Prather CM
    (2001) Paraneoplastic gastrointestinal motor dysfunction: clinical and laboratory characteristics. Am J Gastroenterol 96(2):373–379.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  35. 35.
    1. Haro M,
    2. Jimenez J,
    3. Tornero A,
    4. et al.
    (2002) Usefulness of computerized tomography and bronchoscopy in patients with hemoptysis. Analysis of 482 cases. (In Spanish). An Med Interna 19(2):59–65.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  36. 36.
    1. Losa Gaspà F,
    2. Germá JR,
    3. Albareda JM,
    4. et al.
    (2002) Metastatic cancer presentation. Validation of a diagnostic algorithm with 221 consecutive patients. (In Spanish). Rev Clin Esp 202(6):313–319.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  37. 37.
    1. Abraham PJ,
    2. Capobianco DJ,
    3. Cheshire WP
    (2003) Facial pain as the presenting symptom of lung carcinoma with normal chest radiograph. Headache 43(5):499–504.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  38. 38.
    1. Gomez A,
    2. Zalacain R,
    3. Cabriada V,
    4. et al.
    (2004) Bronchial carcinoid tumors. Analysis of 41 cases. (In Spanish). Rev Clin Esp 204(4):202–205.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  39. 39.
    1. Kitazaki T,
    2. Fukuda M,
    3. Soda H,
    4. Kohno S
    (2005) Novel effects of gefitinib on mucin production in bronchioloalveolar carcinoma; two case reports. Lung Cancer 49(1):125–128.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  40. 40.
    1. Bando H,
    2. Nishio T,
    3. Bamba H,
    4. et al.
    (2006) Vocal fold paralysis as a sign of chest diseases: a 15-year retrospective study. World J Surgery 30(3):293–298.
    OpenUrl
  41. 41.↵
    1. Bjerager M,
    2. Palshof T,
    3. Dahl R,
    4. et al.
    (2006) Delay in diagnosis of lung cancer in general practice. Br J Gen Pract 56(532):863–868.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  42. 42.
    1. Brock MV,
    2. Hooker CM,
    3. Engels EA,
    4. et al.
    (2006) Delayed diagnosis and elevated mortality in an urban population with HIV and lung cancer: implications for patient care. J Acquir Immume Defic Syndr 43(1):47–55.
    OpenUrl
  43. 43.↵
    1. Stapley S,
    2. Sharp D,
    3. Hamilton W
    (2006) Negative chest X-rays in primary care patients with lung cancer. Br J Gen Pract 56(529):570–573.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  44. 44.↵
    1. Fernandez V,
    2. Alonso JL,
    3. Munuera L,
    4. et al.
    (2007) Analysis of lung cancer cases diagnosed in an internal medicine department: from January 2001 to September 2006. (In Spanish). An Sist Sanit Navar 30(3):353–362.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  45. 45.
    1. Kato T,
    2. Narita K,
    3. Ohara K
    (2010) Three cases of squamous cell carcinomas which enlarged rapidly with necrotic cavities after bronchoscopy. (In Japanese). Japanese Journal of Lung Cancer 50(6):822–827.
    OpenUrl
  46. 46.
    1. Kikuchi R,
    2. Isowa N,
    3. Tokuyasu H,
    4. et al.
    (2010) Three cases of resected pleomorphic carcinoma. Ann Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 16(4):264–269.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  47. 47.
    1. Uzun O,
    2. Atasoy Y,
    3. Findik S,
    4. et al.
    (2010) A prospective evaluation of hemoptysis cases in a tertiary referral hospital. Clin Resp J 4(3):131–138.
    OpenUrl
  48. 48.
    1. Mao JF,
    2. Zhang JL,
    3. Nie M,
    4. et al.
    (2011) Diabetes insipidus as the first symptom caused by lung cancer metastasis to the pituitary glands: clinical presentations, diagnosis, and management. J Postgrad Med 57(4):302–306.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  49. 49.
    1. Okazaki A,
    2. Araya T,
    3. Sakai A,
    4. et al.
    (2012) Two cases of small cell lung cancer with metastasis to the stomach at initial diagnosis. (In Japanese). Japanese Journal of Lung Cancer 52(2):220–225.
    OpenUrl
  50. 50.↵
    1. Barry C,
    2. Bergin D
    (2015) Non-detected primary lung cancers on chest x-ray: 3 year retrospective review in university hospital. Ir J Med Sci 1:S262.
    OpenUrl
  51. 51.↵
    1. Ghimire RH,
    2. Bhatta N,
    3. Koirala P,
    4. et al.
    (2016) Outcomes bronchoscopic evaluation in a university hospital. JNMA J Nepal Med Assoc 55(204):51–54.
    OpenUrl
  52. 52.↵
    1. Bossuyt PM,
    2. Reitsma JB,
    3. Bruns DE,
    4. et al.
    (2015) STARD 2015: an updated list of essential items for reporting diagnostic accuracy studies. BMJ 351:h5527.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  53. 53.↵
    1. Bentley TG,
    2. Catanzaro A,
    3. Ganiats TG
    (2012) Implications of the impact of prevalence on test thresholds and outcomes: lessons from tuberculosis. BMC Res Notes 5(1):563.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  54. 54.↵
    1. Quekel LGBA,
    2. Kessels AGH,
    3. Goei R,
    4. van Engelshoven JMA
    (1999) Miss rate of lung cancer on the chest radiograph in clinical practice. Chest 115(3):720–724.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  55. 55.↵
    1. Kvale PA,
    2. Johnson CC,
    3. Tammemägi M,
    4. et al.
    (2014) Interval lung cancers not detected on screening chest X-rays: how are they different? Lung Cancer 86(1):41–46.
    OpenUrl
  56. 56.↵
    1. Del Ciello A,
    2. Franchi P,
    3. Contegiacomo A,
    4. et al.
    (2017) Missed lung cancer: when, where, and why? Diag Interv Radiol 23(2):118–126.
    OpenUrl
  57. 57.↵
    1. Kundel HL,
    2. La Follette PS Jr.
    (1972) Visual search patterns and experience with radiological images. Radiology 103(3):523–528.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  58. 58.↵
    1. Austin JH,
    2. Romney BM,
    3. Goldsmith LS
    (1992) Missed bronchogenic carcinoma: radiographic findings in 27 patients with a potentially resectable lesion evident in retrospect. Radiology 182(1):115–122.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  59. 59.
    1. Shah PK,
    2. Austin JHM,
    3. White CS,
    4. et al.
    (2003) Missed non-small cell lung cancer: radiographic findings of potentially resectable lesions evident only in retrospect. Radiology 226(1):235–241.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  60. 60.
    1. Wu MH,
    2. Gotway MB,
    3. Lee TJ,
    4. et al.
    (2008) Features of non-small cell lung carcinomas overlooked at digital chest radiography. Clin Radiology 63(5):518–528.
    OpenUrl
  61. 61.↵
    1. Theros EG
    (1977) 1976 Caldwell Lecture: varying manifestation of peripheral pulmonary neoplasms: a radiologic-pathologic correlative study. AJR Am J Roentgen 128(6):893–914.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  62. 62.↵
    1. Brogdon B,
    2. Kelsey C,
    3. Moseley RD Jr.
    (1983) Factors affecting perception of pulmonary lesions. Radiol Clin North Am 21(4):633–654.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  63. 63.↵
    1. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence
    (2015) Suspected cancer: recognition and referral NG12 (NICE, London) https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng12 (accessed 19 Sep 2019).
  64. 64.↵
    1. Kennedy MPT,
    2. Cheyne L,
    3. Darby M,
    4. et al.
    (2018) Lung cancer stage-shift following a symptom awareness campaign. Thorax 73(12):1128–1136.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  65. 65.↵
    1. Heleno B,
    2. Siersma V,
    3. Brodersen J
    (2018) Estimation of overdiagnosis of lung cancer in low-dose computed tomography screening: a secondary analysis of the Danish lung cancer screening trial. JAMA Intern Med 178(10):1420–1422.
    OpenUrl
Back to top
Previous ArticleNext Article

In this issue

British Journal of General Practice: 69 (689)
British Journal of General Practice
Vol. 69, Issue 689
December 2019
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
Download PDF
Download PowerPoint
Article Alerts
Or,
sign in or create an account with your email address
Email Article

Thank you for recommending British Journal of General Practice.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person to whom you are recommending the page knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Sensitivity of chest X-ray for detecting lung cancer in people presenting with symptoms: a systematic review
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from British Journal of General Practice
(Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from British Journal of General Practice.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Sensitivity of chest X-ray for detecting lung cancer in people presenting with symptoms: a systematic review
Stephen H Bradley, Sarah Abraham, Matthew EJ Callister, Adam Grice, William T Hamilton, Rocio Rodriguez Lopez, Bethany Shinkins, Richard D Neal
British Journal of General Practice 2019; 69 (689): e827-e835. DOI: 10.3399/bjgp19X706853

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero

Share
Sensitivity of chest X-ray for detecting lung cancer in people presenting with symptoms: a systematic review
Stephen H Bradley, Sarah Abraham, Matthew EJ Callister, Adam Grice, William T Hamilton, Rocio Rodriguez Lopez, Bethany Shinkins, Richard D Neal
British Journal of General Practice 2019; 69 (689): e827-e835. DOI: 10.3399/bjgp19X706853
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One
  • Mendeley logo Mendeley

Jump to section

  • Top
  • Article
    • Abstract
    • INTRODUCTION
    • METHOD
    • RESULTS
    • DISCUSSION
    • Acknowledgments
    • Notes
    • REFERENCES
  • Figures & Data
  • Info
  • eLetters
  • PDF

Keywords

  • diagnostic imaging
  • early diagnosis
  • lung cancer
  • primary care
  • X-rays

More in this TOC Section

  • Impact of a case-management intervention for reducing emergency attendance on primary care: randomised control trial
  • Two-year outcomes of UK patients newly diagnosed with atrial fibrillation: findings from the prospective observational cohort study GARFIELD-AF
  • Supporting families managing childhood eczema: developing and optimising eczema care online using qualitative research
Show more Research

Related Articles

Cited By...

Intended for Healthcare Professionals

BJGP Life

BJGP Open

 

@BJGPjournal's Likes on Twitter

 
 

British Journal of General Practice

NAVIGATE

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • All Issues
  • Online First
  • Authors & reviewers

RCGP

  • BJGP for RCGP members
  • BJGP Open
  • RCGP eLearning
  • InnovAiT Journal
  • Jobs and careers

MY ACCOUNT

  • RCGP members' login
  • Subscriber login
  • Activate subscription
  • Terms and conditions

NEWS AND UPDATES

  • About BJGP
  • Alerts
  • RSS feeds
  • Facebook
  • Twitter

AUTHORS & REVIEWERS

  • Submit an article
  • Writing for BJGP: research
  • Writing for BJGP: other sections
  • BJGP editorial process & policies
  • BJGP ethical guidelines
  • Peer review for BJGP

CUSTOMER SERVICES

  • Advertising
  • Contact subscription agent
  • Copyright
  • Librarian information

CONTRIBUTE

  • BJGP Life
  • eLetters
  • Feedback

CONTACT US

BJGP Journal Office
RCGP
30 Euston Square
London NW1 2FB
Tel: +44 (0)20 3188 7400
Email: journal@rcgp.org.uk

British Journal of General Practice is an editorially-independent publication of the Royal College of General Practitioners
© 2022 British Journal of General Practice

Print ISSN: 0960-1643
Online ISSN: 1478-5242