Author
Jin Mo Goo
Other affiliations: Washington University in St. Louis, New Generation University College, Seoul National University
Bio: Jin Mo Goo is an academic researcher from Seoul National University Hospital. The author has contributed to research in topics: Medicine & Lung cancer. The author has an hindex of 58, co-authored 317 publications receiving 13445 citations. Previous affiliations of Jin Mo Goo include Washington University in St. Louis & New Generation University College.
Topics: Medicine, Lung cancer, Lung, Lung cancer screening, Nodule (medicine)
Papers published on a yearly basis
Papers
More filters
••
University of Chicago1, New York University2, Sungkyunkwan University3, Stanford University4, University of British Columbia5, Cleveland Clinic6, Kobe University7, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai8, Radboud University Nijmegen9, Duke University10, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center11, University of Antwerp12, Harvard University13
TL;DR: These guidelines represent the consensus of the Fleischner Society, and as such, they incorporate the opinions of a multidisciplinary international group of thoracic radiologists, pulmonologists, surgeons, pathologists, and other specialists.
Abstract: The Fleischner Society Guidelines for management of solid nodules were published in 2005, and separate guidelines for subsolid nodules were issued in 2013. Since then, new information has become available; therefore, the guidelines have been revised to reflect current thinking on nodule management. The revised guidelines incorporate several substantive changes that reflect current thinking on the management of small nodules. The minimum threshold size for routine follow-up has been increased, and recommended follow-up intervals are now given as a range rather than as a precise time period to give radiologists, clinicians, and patients greater discretion to accommodate individual risk factors and preferences. The guidelines for solid and subsolid nodules have been combined in one simplified table, and specific recommendations have been included for multiple nodules. These guidelines represent the consensus of the Fleischner Society, and as such, they incorporate the opinions of a multidisciplinary international group of thoracic radiologists, pulmonologists, surgeons, pathologists, and other specialists. Changes from the previous guidelines issued by the Fleischner Society are based on new data and accumulated experience. © RSNA, 2017 Online supplemental material is available for this article. An earlier incorrect version of this article appeared online. This article was corrected on March 13, 2017.
1,412 citations
••
Duke University1, University of British Columbia2, Albert Einstein College of Medicine3, University of Parma4, University of Wisconsin-Madison5, Lenox Hill Hospital6, Columbia University7, New Generation University College8, Medical College of Wisconsin9, Stanford University10, University of Missouri11, National Institutes of Health12, University of California, Los Angeles13, Université Paris-Saclay14, University Hospital Heidelberg15, Sichuan University16, Cleveland Clinic17, Radboud University Nijmegen18, university of lille19, Catholic University of the Sacred Heart20, Osaka University21
TL;DR: A multidisciplinary panel comprised principally of radiologists and pulmonologists from 10 countries with experience managing COVID-19 patients across a spectrum of healthcare environments evaluated the utility of imaging within three scenarios representing varying risk factors, community conditions, and resource constraints, resulting in five main and three additional recommendations intended to guide medical practitioners in the use of CXR and CT in the management of COIDs.
1,232 citations
••
TL;DR: In this article, the authors proposed a set of recommendations specifically aimed at subsolid nodules, which are based on the original Fleischner Society guidelines for incidentally detected solid nodules.
Abstract: This report is to complement the original Fleischner Society recommendations for incidentally detected solid nodules by proposing a set of recommendations specifically aimed at subsolid nodules. The development of a standardized approach to the interpretation and management of subsolid nodules remains critically important given that peripheral adenocarcinomas represent the most common type of lung cancer, with evidence of increasing frequency. Following an initial consideration of appropriate terminology to describe subsolid nodules and a brief review of the new classification system for peripheral lung adenocarcinomas sponsored by the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer (IASLC), American Thoracic Society (ATS), and European Respiratory Society (ERS), six specific recommendations were made, three with regard to solitary subsolid nodules and three with regard to multiple subsolid nodules. Each recommendation is followed first by the rationales underlying the recommendation and then by specific pertinent remarks. Finally, issues for which future research is needed are discussed. The recommendations are the result of careful review of the literature now available regarding subsolid nodules. Given the complexity of these lesions, the current recommendations are more varied than the original Fleischner Society guidelines for solid nodules. It cannot be overemphasized that these guidelines must be interpreted in light of an individual's clinical history. Given the frequency with which subsolid nodules are encountered in daily clinical practice, and notwithstanding continuing controversy on many of these issues, it is anticipated that further refinements and modifications to these recommendations will be forthcoming as information continues to emerge from ongoing research.
788 citations
••
TL;DR: An introduction to the software frequently used for performing ROC analyses is presented and important concepts involved in the correct use and interpretation of this analysis, such as smooth and empirical ROC curves, parametric and nonparametric methods, and the area under the ROC curve and its 95% confidence interval are discussed.
Abstract: The receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve, which is defined as a plot of test sensitivity as they coordinate versus its 1-specificity or false positive rate (FPR) as the x coordinate, is an effective method of evaluating the performance of diagnostic tests. The purpose of this article is to provide a nonmathematical introduction to ROC analysis. Important concepts involved in the correct use and interpretation of this analysis, such as smooth and empirical ROC curves, parametric and nonparametric methods, the area under the ROC curve and its 95% confidence interval, the sensitivity at a particular FPR, and the use of a partial area under the ROC curve are discussed. Various considerations concerning the collection of data in radiological ROC studies are briefly discussed. An introduction to the software frequently used for performing ROC analyses is also presented.
690 citations
••
Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center1, Keio University2, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center3, Mount Sinai Hospital4, Yale University5, Fox Chase Cancer Center6, New Generation University College7, University of Chicago8, New York University9, Imperial College London10, Radboud University Nijmegen11, University of Barcelona12, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre13, University of Michigan14, University of São Paulo15, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center16, University of Duisburg-Essen17, Northern General Hospital18, University of Caen Lower Normandy19, Churchill Hospital20, Queen's University21, University of Sydney22, Sungkyunkwan University23, Seoul National University24, Kyorin University25, University of Copenhagen26, Nippon Medical School27, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven28, British Hospital29, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center30, University of Antwerp31, Hyogo College of Medicine32, University of Western Australia33, Glenfield Hospital34, Cleveland Clinic35, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai36, University of Turin37, Université libre de Bruxelles38, Juntendo University39, National Cancer Research Institute40, Mayo Clinic41, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre42, Sinai Grace Hospital43, Netherlands Cancer Institute44, Hiroshima University45, City of Hope National Medical Center46, Georgetown University47, University of Tokushima48, University of Pisa49, Osaka University50
TL;DR: Codes for the primary tumor categories of AIS and minimally invasive adenocarcinoma (MIA) and a uniform way to measure tumor size in part‐solid tumors for the eighth edition of the tumor, node, and metastasis classification of lung cancer are proposed.
431 citations
Cited by
More filters
••
TL;DR: This new adenocarcinoma classification is needed to provide uniform terminology and diagnostic criteria, especially for bronchioloalveolar carcinoma (BAC), the overall approach to small nonresection cancer specimens, and for multidisciplinary strategic management of tissue for molecular and immunohistochemical studies.
3,850 citations
••
TL;DR: Members of the Fleischner Society compiled a glossary of terms for thoracic imaging that replaces previous glossaries published in 1984 and 1996 for Thoracic radiography and computed tomography, respectively.
Abstract: Members of the Fleischner Society compiled a glossary of terms for thoracic imaging that replaces previous glossaries published in 1984 and 1996 for thoracic radiography and computed tomography (CT), respectively. The need to update the previous versions came from the recognition that new words have emerged, others have become obsolete, and the meaning of some terms has changed. Brief descriptions of some diseases are included, and pictorial examples (chest radiographs and CT scans) are provided for the majority of terms.
3,299 citations
••
Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center1, French Institute of Health and Medical Research2, Columbia University Medical Center3, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai4, Brigham and Women's Hospital5, University of Pittsburgh6, Fox Chase Cancer Center7, University of Mississippi Medical Center8, University of Colorado Boulder9, Aberdeen Royal Infirmary10, University of Tsukuba11, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center12
TL;DR: The 2015 World Health Organization (WHO) Classification of Tumors of the Lung, Pleura, Thymus and Heart has just been published with numerous important changes from the 2004 WHO classification.
3,029 citations
••
Imperial College London1, University of Barcelona2, Keio University3, University of Duisburg-Essen4, Queen's University5, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre6, University of Michigan7, University of São Paulo8, Yale University9, Northern General Hospital10, University of Caen Lower Normandy11, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center12, University of Oxford13, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center14, University of Sydney15, Sungkyunkwan University16, Seoul National University17, Kyorin University18, University of Copenhagen19, Nippon Medical School20, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven21, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center22, University of Antwerp23, Hyogo College of Medicine24, University of Western Australia25, Glenfield Hospital26, Cleveland Clinic27, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai28, University of Turin29, Université libre de Bruxelles30, Juntendo University31, National Cancer Research Institute32, Mayo Clinic33, University of Toronto34, Sinai Grace Hospital35, Netherlands Cancer Institute36, Hiroshima University37, City of Hope National Medical Center38, University of Chicago39, New York University40, Georgetown University41, University of Tokushima42, University of Pisa43, Osaka University44, University of Valencia45, Good Samaritan Hospital46, Military Medical Academy47, Fundación Favaloro48, Autonomous University of Barcelona49, Complutense University of Madrid50, University of Oviedo51, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens52, Rovira i Virgili University53, Autonomous University of Madrid54, Ghent University55
TL;DR: The methods used to evaluate the resultant Stage groupings and the proposals put forward for the 8th edition of the TNM Classification for lung cancer due to be published late 2016 are described.
2,826 citations