Dataset Information

Development and Validation of Risk Models to Select Ever-Smokers for CT Lung Cancer Screening.

ABSTRACT: IMPORTANCE:The US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommends computed tomography (CT) lung cancer screening for ever-smokers aged 55 to 80 years who have smoked at least 30 pack-years with no more than 15 years since quitting. However, selecting ever-smokers for screening using individualized lung cancer risk calculations may be more effective and efficient than current USPSTF recommendations. OBJECTIVE:Comparison of modeled outcomes from risk-based CT lung-screening strategies vs USPSTF recommendations. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS:Empirical risk models for lung cancer incidence and death in the absence of CT screening using data on ever-smokers from the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial (PLCO; 1993-2009) control group. Covariates included age; education; sex; race; smoking intensity, duration, and quit-years; body mass index; family history of lung cancer; and self-reported emphysema. Model validation in the chest radiography groups of the PLCO and the National Lung Screening Trial (NLST; 2002-2009), with additional validation of the death model in the National Health Interview Survey (NHIS; 1997-2001), a representative sample of the United States. Models were applied to US ever-smokers aged 50 to 80 years (NHIS 2010-2012) to estimate outcomes of risk-based selection for CT lung screening, assuming screening for all ever-smokers, yield the percent changes in lung cancer detection and death observed in the NLST. EXPOSURES:Annual CT lung screening for 3 years beginning at age 50 years. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES:For model validity: calibration (number of model-predicted cases divided by number of observed cases [estimated/observed]) and discrimination (area under curve [AUC]). For modeled screening outcomes: estimated number of screen-avertable lung cancer deaths and estimated screening effectiveness (number needed to screen [NNS] to prevent 1 lung cancer death). RESULTS:Lung cancer incidence and death risk models were well calibrated in PLCO and NLST. The lung cancer death model calibrated and discriminated well for US ever-smokers aged 50 to 80 years (NHIS 1997-2001: estimated/observed?=?0.94 [95%CI, 0.84-1.05]; AUC, 0.78 [95%CI, 0.76-0.80]). Under USPSTF recommendations, the models estimated 9.0 million US ever-smokers would qualify for lung cancer screening and 46,488 (95% CI, 43,924-49,053) lung cancer deaths were estimated as screen-avertable over 5 years (estimated NNS, 194 [95% CI, 187-201]). In contrast, risk-based selection screening of the same number of ever-smokers (9.0 million) at highest 5-year lung cancer risk (?1.9%) was estimated to avert 20% more deaths (55,717 [95% CI, 53,033-58,400]) and was estimated to reduce the estimated NNS by 17% (NNS, 162 [95% CI, 157-166]). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE:Among a cohort of US ever-smokers aged 50 to 80 years, application of a risk-based model for CT screening for lung cancer compared with a model based on USPSTF recommendations was estimated to be associated with a greater number of lung cancer deaths prevented over 5 years, along with a lower NNS to prevent 1 lung cancer death.

SUBMITTER: Katki HA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4899131 | biostudies-literature | 2016 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Development and Validation of Risk Models to Select Ever-Smokers for CT Lung Cancer Screening.

Katki Hormuzd A HA Kovalchik Stephanie A SA Berg Christine D CD Cheung Li C LC Chaturvedi Anil K AK

JAMA 20160601 21

<h4>Importance</h4>The US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommends computed tomography (CT) lung cancer screening for ever-smokers aged 55 to 80 years who have smoked at least 30 pack-years with no more than 15 years since quitting. However, selecting ever-smokers for screening using individualized lung cancer risk calculations may be more effective and efficient than current USPSTF recommendations.<h4>Objective</h4>Comparison of modeled outcomes from risk-based CT lung-screening strat ...[more]

PMID: 27179989

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionIdentification of individuals at high risk for lung cancer should be of value to individuals, patients, clinicians, and researchers. Existing prediction models have only modest capabilities to classify persons at risk accurately.MethodsProspective data from 70 962 control subjects in the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial (PLCO) were used in models for the general population (model 1) and for a subcohort of ever-smokers (N = 38 254) (model 2). Both models included age, socioeconomic status (education), body mass index, family history of lung cancer, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, recent chest x-ray, smoking status (never, former, or current), pack-years smoked, and smoking duration. Model 2 also included smoking quit-time (time in years since ever-smokers permanently quit smoking). External validation was performed with 44 223 PLCO intervention arm participants who completed a supplemental questionnaire and were subsequently followed. Known available risk factors were included in logistic regression models. Bootstrap optimism-corrected estimates of predictive performance were calculated (internal validation). Nonlinear relationships for age, pack-years smoked, smoking duration, and quit-time were modeled using restricted cubic splines. All reported P values are two-sided.ResultsDuring follow-up (median 9.2 years) of the control arm subjects, 1040 lung cancers occurred. During follow-up of the external validation sample (median 3.0 years), 213 lung cancers occurred. For models 1 and 2, bootstrap optimism-corrected receiver operator characteristic area under the curves were 0.857 and 0.805, and calibration slopes (model-predicted probabilities vs observed probabilities) were 0.987 and 0.979, respectively. In the external validation sample, models 1 and 2 had area under the curves of 0.841 and 0.784, respectively. These models had high discrimination in women, men, whites, and nonwhites.ConclusionThe PLCO lung cancer risk models demonstrate high discrimination and calibration.

Project description:Background:Lung cancer screening guidelines recommend using individualized risk models to refer ever-smokers for screening. However, different models select different screening populations. The performance of each model in selecting ever-smokers for screening is unknown. Objective:To compare the U.S. screening populations selected by 9 lung cancer risk models (the Bach model; the Spitz model; the Liverpool Lung Project [LLP] model; the LLP Incidence Risk Model [LLPi]; the Hoggart model; the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial Model 2012 [PLCOM2012]; the Pittsburgh Predictor; the Lung Cancer Risk Assessment Tool [LCRAT]; and the Lung Cancer Death Risk Assessment Tool [LCDRAT]) and to examine their predictive performance in 2 cohorts. Design:Population-based prospective studies. Setting:United States. Participants:Models selected U.S. screening populations by using data from the National Health Interview Survey from 2010 to 2012. Model performance was evaluated using data from 337 388 ever-smokers in the National Institutes of Health-AARP Diet and Health Study and 72 338 ever-smokers in the CPS-II (Cancer Prevention Study II) Nutrition Survey cohort. Measurements:Model calibration (ratio of model-predicted to observed cases [expected-observed ratio]) and discrimination (area under the curve [AUC]). Results:At a 5-year risk threshold of 2.0%, the models chose U.S. screening populations ranging from 7.6 million to 26 million ever-smokers. These disagreements occurred because, in both validation cohorts, 4 models (the Bach model, PLCOM2012, LCRAT, and LCDRAT) were well-calibrated (expected-observed ratio range, 0.92 to 1.12) and had higher AUCs (range, 0.75 to 0.79) than 5 models that generally overestimated risk (expected-observed ratio range, 0.83 to 3.69) and had lower AUCs (range, 0.62 to 0.75). The 4 best-performing models also had the highest sensitivity at a fixed specificity (and vice versa) and similar discrimination at a fixed risk threshold. These models showed better agreement on size of the screening population (7.6 million to 10.9 million) and achieved consensus on 73% of persons chosen. Limitation:No consensus on risk thresholds for screening. Conclusion:The 9 lung cancer risk models chose widely differing U.S. screening populations. However, 4 models (the Bach model, PLCOM2012, LCRAT, and LCDRAT) most accurately predicted risk and performed best in selecting ever-smokers for screening. Primary Funding Source:Intramural Research Program of the National Institutes of Health/National Cancer Institute.

Project description:PurposeLow-dose CT screening allows early lung cancer detection, but is affected by frequent false positive results, inter/intra observer variation and uncertain diagnoses of lung nodules. Radiomics-based models have recently been introduced to overcome these issues, but limitations in demonstrating their generalizability on independent datasets are slowing their introduction to clinic. The aim of this study is to evaluate two radiomics-based models to classify malignant pulmonary nodules in low-dose CT screening, and to externally validate them on an independent cohort. The effect of a radiomics features harmonization technique is also investigated to evaluate its impact on the classification of lung nodules from a multicenter data.MethodsPulmonary nodules from two independent cohorts were considered in this study; the first cohort (110 subjects, 113 nodules) was used to train prediction models, and the second cohort (72 nodules) to externally validate them. Literature-based radiomics features were extracted and, after feature selection, used as predictive variables in models for malignancy identification. An in-house prediction model based on artificial neural network (ANN) was implemented and evaluated, along with an alternative model from the literature, based on a support vector machine (SVM) classifier coupled with a least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO). External validation was performed on the second cohort to evaluate models' generalization ability. Additionally, the impact of the Combat harmonization method was investigated to compensate for multicenter datasets variabilities. A new training of the models based on harmonized features was performed on the first cohort, then tested separately on the harmonized and non-harmonized features of the second cohort.ResultsPreliminary results showed a good accuracy of the investigated models in distinguishing benign from malignant pulmonary nodules with both sets of radiomics features (i.e., non-harmonized and harmonized). The performance of the models, quantified in terms of Area Under the Curve (AUC), was > 0.89 in the training set and > 0.82 in the external validation set for all the investigated scenarios, outperforming the clinical standard (AUC of 0.76). Slightly higher performance was observed for the SVM-LASSO model than the ANN in the external dataset, although they did not result significantly different. For both harmonized and non-harmonized features, no statistical difference was found between Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves related to training and test set for both models.ConclusionsAlthough no significant improvements were observed when applying the Combat harmonization method, both in-house and literature-based models were able to classify lung nodules with good generalization to an independent dataset, thus showing their potential as tools for clinical decision-making in lung cancer screening.

Project description:BackgroundLung cancer risk prediction models might efficiently identify individuals who should be offered lung cancer screening. However, their performance has not been comprehensively evaluated in Europe. We aimed to externally validate and evaluate the performance of several risk prediction models that predict lung cancer incidence or mortality in prospective European cohorts.MethodsWe analysed 240 137 participants aged 45-80 years with a current or former smoking history from nine European countries in four prospective cohorts from the pooled database of the Lung Cancer Cohort Consortium: the Alpha-Tocopherol, Beta-Carotene Cancer Prevention Study (Finland), the Nord-Trøndelag Health Study (Norway), CONSTANCES (France), and the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (Denmark, Germany, Italy, Spain, Sweden, the Netherlands, and Norway). We evaluated ten lung cancer risk models, which comprised the Bach, the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial 2012 model (PLCOm2012), the Lung Cancer Risk Assessment Tool (LCRAT), the Lung Cancer Death Risk Assessment Tool (LCDRAT), the Nord-Trøndelag Health Study (HUNT), the Optimized Early Warning Model for Lung Cancer Risk (OWL), the University College London-Death (UCLD), the University College London-Incidence (UCLI), the Liverpool Lung Project version 2 (LLP version 2), and the Liverpool Lung Project version 3 (LLP version 3) models. We quantified model calibration as the ratio of expected to observed cases or deaths and discrimination using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). For each model, we also identified risk thresholds that would screen the same number of individuals as each of the US Preventive Services Task Force 2021 (USPSTF-2021), the US Preventive Services Task Force 2013 (USPSTF-2013), and the Nederlands-Leuvens Longkanker Screenings Onderzoek (NELSON) criteria.FindingsAmong the participants, 1734 lung cancer cases and 1072 lung cancer deaths occurred within five years of enrolment. Most models had reasonable calibration in most countries, although the LLP version 2 overpredicted risk by more than 50% in eight countries (expected to observed ≥1·50). The PLCOm2012, LCDRAT, LCRAT, Bach, HUNT, OWL, UCLD, and UCLI models showed similar discrimination in most countries, with AUCs ranging from 0·68 (95% CI 0·59-0·77) to 0·83 (0·78-0·89), whereas the LLP version 2 and LLP version 3 showed lower discrimination, with AUCs ranging from 0·64 (95% CI 0·57-0·72) to 0·78 (0·74-0·83). When pooling data from all countries (but excluding the HUNT cohort), 33·9% (73 313 of 216 387) of individuals were eligible by USPSTF-2021 criteria, which included 74·8% (1185) of lung cancers and 76·3% (730) of lung cancer deaths occurring over 5 years. Fewer individuals were selected by USPSTF-2013 and NELSON criteria. After applying thresholds to select a population of equal size to USPSTF-2021, the PLCOm2012, LCDRAT, LCRAT, Bach, HUNT, OWL, UCLD, and UCLI, models identified 77·6%-79·1% of future cases, although they selected slightly older individuals compared with USPSTF-2021 criteria. Results were similar for USPSTF-2013 and NELSON.InterpretationSeveral lung cancer risk prediction models showed good performance in European countries and might improve the efficiency of lung cancer screening if used in place of categorical eligibility criteria.FundingUS National Cancer Institute, l'Institut National du Cancer, Cancer Research UK.

Project description:BackgroundLung cancer screening with chest computed tomography (CT) reduces lung cancer death. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) eligibility criteria for lung cancer screening with CT require detailed smoking information and miss many incident lung cancers. An automated deep-learning approach based on chest radiograph images may identify more smokers at high risk for lung cancer who could benefit from screening with CT.ObjectiveTo develop and validate a convolutional neural network (CXR-LC) that predicts long-term incident lung cancer using data commonly available in the electronic medical record (EMR) (chest radiograph, age, sex, and whether currently smoking).DesignRisk prediction study.SettingU.S. lung cancer screening trials.ParticipantsThe CXR-LC model was developed in the PLCO (Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian) Cancer Screening Trial (n = 41 856). The final CXR-LC model was validated in additional PLCO smokers (n = 5615, 12-year follow-up) and NLST (National Lung Screening Trial) heavy smokers (n = 5493, 6-year follow-up). Results are reported for validation data sets only.MeasurementsUp to 12-year lung cancer incidence predicted by CXR-LC.ResultsThe CXR-LC model had better discrimination (area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve [AUC]) for incident lung cancer than CMS eligibility (PLCO AUC, 0.755 vs. 0.634; P < 0.001). The CXR-LC model's performance was similar to that of PLCOM2012, a state-of-the-art risk score with 11 inputs, in both the PLCO data set (CXR-LC AUC of 0.755 vs. PLCOM2012 AUC of 0.751) and the NLST data set (0.659 vs. 0.650). When compared in equal-sized screening populations, CXR-LC was more sensitive than CMS eligibility in the PLCO data set (74.9% vs. 63.8%; P = 0.012) and missed 30.7% fewer incident lung cancers. On decision curve analysis, CXR-LC had higher net benefit than CMS eligibility and similar benefit to PLCOM2012.LimitationValidation in lung cancer screening trials and not a clinical setting.ConclusionThe CXR-LC model identified smokers at high risk for incident lung cancer, beyond CMS eligibility and using information commonly available in the EMR.Primary funding sourceNone.

Project description:BackgroundSelection of candidates for lung cancer screening based on individual risk has been proposed as an alternative to criteria based on age and cumulative smoking exposure (pack-years). Nine previously established risk models were assessed for their ability to identify those most likely to develop or die from lung cancer. All models considered age and various aspects of smoking exposure (smoking status, smoking duration, cigarettes per day, pack-years smoked, time since smoking cessation) as risk predictors. In addition, some models considered factors such as gender, race, ethnicity, education, body mass index, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, emphysema, personal history of cancer, personal history of pneumonia, and family history of lung cancer.Methods and findingsRetrospective analyses were performed on 53,452 National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) participants (1,925 lung cancer cases and 884 lung cancer deaths) and 80,672 Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial (PLCO) ever-smoking participants (1,463 lung cancer cases and 915 lung cancer deaths). Six-year lung cancer incidence and mortality risk predictions were assessed for (1) calibration (graphically) by comparing the agreement between the predicted and the observed risks, (2) discrimination (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve [AUC]) between individuals with and without lung cancer (death), and (3) clinical usefulness (net benefit in decision curve analysis) by identifying risk thresholds at which applying risk-based eligibility would improve lung cancer screening efficacy. To further assess performance, risk model sensitivities and specificities in the PLCO were compared to those based on the NLST eligibility criteria. Calibration was satisfactory, but discrimination ranged widely (AUCs from 0.61 to 0.81). The models outperformed the NLST eligibility criteria over a substantial range of risk thresholds in decision curve analysis, with a higher sensitivity for all models and a slightly higher specificity for some models. The PLCOm2012, Bach, and Two-Stage Clonal Expansion incidence models had the best overall performance, with AUCs >0.68 in the NLST and >0.77 in the PLCO. These three models had the highest sensitivity and specificity for predicting 6-y lung cancer incidence in the PLCO chest radiography arm, with sensitivities >79.8% and specificities >62.3%. In contrast, the NLST eligibility criteria yielded a sensitivity of 71.4% and a specificity of 62.2%. Limitations of this study include the lack of identification of optimal risk thresholds, as this requires additional information on the long-term benefits (e.g., life-years gained and mortality reduction) and harms (e.g., overdiagnosis) of risk-based screening strategies using these models. In addition, information on some predictor variables included in the risk prediction models was not available.ConclusionsSelection of individuals for lung cancer screening using individual risk is superior to selection criteria based on age and pack-years alone. The benefits, harms, and feasibility of implementing lung cancer screening policies based on risk prediction models should be assessed and compared with those of current recommendations.

Dataset Information

Development and Validation of Risk Models to Select Ever-Smokers for CT Lung Cancer Screening.

Publications

Development and Validation of Risk Models to Select Ever-Smokers for CT Lung Cancer Screening.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets