Incidence and risk factors for malignancy in patients with incidental solitary pulmonary nodules: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Ann MedFeb 5, 2026 (epub)
Clinical ResearchPulmonologyRadiology (Diagnostic)Open access

Huiyu Zheng, Zhipeng Shao, Wensong Shi et al.

✦ AI-curated · Sources linked

In 30 seconds

This systematic review and random-effects meta-analysis assessed malignancy rates and associated factors in patients with incidentally detected solitary pulmonary nodules (SPNs). Across 54 studies involving 19,985 patients, the pooled malignancy rate was 56.7% (95% CI: 51.5-62.0). Estimates varied substantially between studies (I² = 98.5%, p < 0.001), and the rate was 54.7% (95%CI: 50.9-58.8) after adjustment for potential publication bias. Several patient and imaging characteristics were associated with higher or lower malignancy risk.

Key findings

  • The pooled malignancy rate was 56.7% (95% CI: 51.5-62.0) across 54 studies and 19,985 patients.
  • Between-study heterogeneity was substantial (I² = 98.5%, p < 0.001); the publication-bias-adjusted estimate was 54.7% (95%CI: 50.9-58.8).
  • Older age, cancer history, smoking, larger diameter, and several suspicious imaging features were associated with increased malignancy risk.
  • Male sex, calcification, and clear borders were associated with reduced malignancy risk.

Why it matters

The pooled estimate and associated clinical and imaging features may inform risk stratification and follow-up decisions for incidental SPNs. However, the overall malignancy rate should not be applied uncritically to every setting: the authors note marked heterogeneity and a high proportion of retrospective studies and populations from high-risk regions.

What to keep in mind

The pooled estimate had substantial between-study heterogeneity, and the evidence included a high proportion of retrospective studies and populations from high-risk regions.

Source

Published in Ann Med. This summary was written by xxcode from the publication's abstract and metadata. It is not peer reviewed and is not a substitute for the original article. For clinical decisions, review the original publication.

ShareTelegramLinkedIn

AI-generated summaries may contain errors or omissions. Verify clinically important information with the original publication.

More in Pulmonology

Want this personalized?

Stop searching the literature. Choose what you follow and xxcode will build your personalized medical digest.

  • Your specialties
  • Your filters and thresholds
  • Clinical Research + Case Reports, tuned separately
  • Automatic weekly delivery
  • Audio and text

Prefer listening? Personalized audio digests are available with Pro.

Stay updated for free

Get the 3 most interesting publications in one specialty each week.

Weekly email. Unsubscribe anytime.