Dataset Information

Risk prediction models for selection of lung cancer screening candidates: A retrospective validation study.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Selection 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 FINDINGS:Retrospective 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. CONCLUSIONS:Selection 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.

SUBMITTER: Ten Haaf K

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5380315 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Apr

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Risk prediction models for selection of lung cancer screening candidates: A retrospective validation study.

Ten Haaf Kevin K Jeon Jihyoun J Tammemägi Martin C MC Han Summer S SS Kong Chung Yin CY Plevritis Sylvia K SK Feuer Eric J EJ de Koning Harry J HJ Steyerberg Ewout W EW Meza Rafael R

PLoS medicine 20170404 4

<h4>Background</h4>Selection 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 ce ...[more]

PMID: 28376113

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:ImportanceThe 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.ObjectiveComparison of modeled outcomes from risk-based CT lung-screening strategies vs USPSTF recommendations.Design, setting, and participantsEmpirical 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.ExposuresAnnual CT lung screening for 3 years beginning at age 50 years.Main outcomes and measuresFor 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).ResultsLung 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 relevanceAmong 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.

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:Background and purposeThe net benefit of carotid endarterectomy (CEA) is determined partly by the risk of procedural stroke or death. Current guidelines recommend CEA if 30-day risks are <6% for symptomatic stenosis and <3% for asymptomatic stenosis. We aimed to identify prediction models for procedural stroke or death after CEA and to externally validate these models in a large registry of patients from the United States.MethodsWe conducted a systematic search in MEDLINE and EMBASE for prediction models of procedural outcomes after CEA. We validated these models with data from patients who underwent CEA in the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (2011-2017). We assessed discrimination using C statistics and calibration graphically. We determined the number of patients with predicted risks that exceeded recommended thresholds of procedural risks to perform CEA.ResultsAfter screening 788 reports, 15 studies describing 17 prediction models were included. Nine were developed in populations including both asymptomatic and symptomatic patients, 2 in symptomatic and 5 in asymptomatic populations. In the external validation cohort of 26 293 patients who underwent CEA, 702 (2.7%) developed a stroke or died within 30-days. C statistics varied between 0.52 and 0.64 using all patients, between 0.51 and 0.59 using symptomatic patients, and between 0.49 to 0.58 using asymptomatic patients. The Ontario Carotid Endarterectomy Registry model that included symptomatic status, diabetes, heart failure, and contralateral occlusion as predictors, had C statistic of 0.64 and the best concordance between predicted and observed risks. This model identified 4.5% of symptomatic and 2.1% of asymptomatic patients with procedural risks that exceeded recommended thresholds.ConclusionsOf the 17 externally validated prediction models, the Ontario Carotid Endarterectomy Registry risk model had most reliable predictions of procedural stroke or death after CEA and can inform patients about procedural hazards and help focus CEA toward patients who would benefit most from it.

Project description:Because existing risk prediction models for lung cancer were developed in white populations, they may not be appropriate for predicting risk among African-Americans. Therefore, a need exists to construct and validate a risk prediction model for lung cancer that is specific to African-Americans. We analyzed data from 491 African-Americans with lung cancer and 497 matched African-American controls to identify specific risks and incorporate them into a multivariable risk model for lung cancer and estimate the 5-year absolute risk of lung cancer. We performed internal and external validations of the risk model using data on additional cases and controls from the same ongoing multiracial/ethnic lung cancer case-control study from which the model-building data were obtained as well as data from two different lung cancer studies in metropolitan Detroit, respectively. We also compared our African-American model with our previously developed risk prediction model for whites. The final risk model included smoking-related variables [smoking status, pack-years smoked, age at smoking cessation (former smokers), and number of years since smoking cessation (former smokers)], self-reported physician diagnoses of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or hay fever, and exposures to asbestos or wood dusts. Our risk prediction model for African-Americans exhibited good discrimination [75% (95% confidence interval, 0.67-0.82)] for our internal data and moderate discrimination [63% (95% confidence interval, 0.57-0.69)] for the external data group, which is an improvement over the Spitz model for white subjects. Existing lung cancer prediction models may not be appropriate for predicting risk for African-Americans because (a) they were developed using white populations, (b) level of risk is different for risk factors that African-American share with whites, and (c) unique group-specific risk factors exist for African-Americans. This study developed and validated a risk prediction model for lung cancer that is specific to African-Americans and thus more precise in predicting their risks. These findings highlight the importance of conducting further ethnic-specific analyses of disease risk.

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.

Dataset Information

Risk prediction models for selection of lung cancer screening candidates: A retrospective validation study.

Publications

Risk prediction models for selection of lung cancer screening candidates: A retrospective validation study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets