Dataset Information

Life-Gained-Based Versus Risk-Based Selection of Smokers for Lung Cancer Screening.

ABSTRACT: Background:Although risk-based selection of ever-smokers for screening could prevent more lung cancer deaths than screening according to the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) guidelines, it preferentially selects older ever-smokers with shorter life expectancies due to comorbidities. Objective:To compare selection of ever-smokers for screening based on gains in life expectancy versus lung cancer risk. Design:Cohort analyses and model-based projections. Setting:U.S. population of ever-smokers aged 40 to 84 years. Participants:130 964 National Health Interview Survey participants, representing about 60 million U.S. ever-smokers during 1997 to 2015. Intervention:Annual computed tomography (CT) screening for 3 years versus no screening. Measurements:Estimated number of lung cancer deaths averted and life-years gained after development of a mortality model. Results:Using the calibrated and validated mortality model in U.S. ever-smokers aged 40 to 84 years and selecting 8.3 million ever-smokers to match the number selected by the USPSTF criteria in 2013 to 2015, the analysis estimated that life-gained-based selection would increase the total life expectancy from CT screening (633 400 vs. 607 800 years) but prevent fewer lung cancer deaths (52 600 vs. 55 000) compared with risk-based selection. The 1.56 million persons selected by the life-gained-based strategy but not the risk-based strategy were younger (mean age, 59 vs. 75 years) and had fewer comorbidities (mean, 0.75 vs. 3.7). Limitation:Estimates are model-based and assume implementation of lung cancer screening with short-term effectiveness similar to that from trials. Conclusion:Life-gained-based selection could maximize the benefits of lung cancer screening in the U.S. population by including ever-smokers who have both high lung cancer risk and long life expectancy. Primary Funding Source:Intramural Research Program of the National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health.

SUBMITTER: Cheung LC

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7191755 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Life-Gained-Based Versus Risk-Based Selection of Smokers for Lung Cancer Screening.

Cheung Li C LC Berg Christine D CD Castle Philip E PE Katki Hormuzd A HA Chaturvedi Anil K AK

Annals of internal medicine 20191022 9

<h4>Background</h4>Although risk-based selection of ever-smokers for screening could prevent more lung cancer deaths than screening according to the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) guidelines, it preferentially selects older ever-smokers with shorter life expectancies due to comorbidities.<h4>Objective</h4>To compare selection of ever-smokers for screening based on gains in life expectancy versus lung cancer risk.<h4>Design</h4>Cohort analyses and model-based projections.<h4>Setting ...[more]

PMID: 31634914

Similar Datasets

Project description:PurposeWe evaluated proof of principle for resource-efficient, risk-based screening through reanalysis of the Kerala Oral Cancer Screening Trial.MethodsThe cluster-randomized trial included three triennial rounds of visual inspection (seven clusters, n = 96,516) versus standard of care (six clusters, n = 95,354) and up to 9 years of follow-up. We developed a Cox regression-based risk prediction model for oral cancer incidence. Using this risk prediction model to adjust for the oral cancer risk imbalance between arms, through intention-to-treat (ITT) analyses that accounted for cluster randomization, we calculated the relative (hazard ratios [HRs]) and absolute (rate differences [RDs]) screening efficacy on oral cancer mortality and compared screening efficiency across risk thresholds.ResultsOral cancer mortality was reduced by 27% in the screening versus control arms (HR = 0.73; 95% CI, 0.54 to 0.98), including a 29% reduction in ever-tobacco and/or ever-alcohol users (HR = 0.71; 95% CI, 0.51 to 0.99). This relative efficacy was similar across oral cancer risk quartiles (P interaction = .59); consequently, the absolute efficacy increased with increasing model-predicted risk-overall trial: RD in the lowest risk quartile (Q1) = 0.5/100,000 versus 13.4/100,000 in the highest quartile (Q4), P trend = .059 and ever-tobacco and/or ever-alcohol users: Q1 RD = 1.0/100,000 versus Q4 = 22.5/100,000; P trend = .026. In a population akin to the Kerala trial, screening of 100% of individuals would provide 27.1% oral cancer mortality reduction at number needed to screen (NNS) = 2,043. Restriction of screening to ever-tobacco and/or ever-alcohol users with no additional risk stratification would substantially enhance efficiency (43.4% screened for 23.3% oral cancer mortality reduction at NNS = 1,029), whereas risk prediction model-based screening of 50% of ever-tobacco and/or ever-alcohol users at highest risk would further enhance efficiency with little loss in program sensitivity (21.7% screened for 19.7% oral cancer mortality reduction at NNS = 610).ConclusionIn the Kerala trial, the efficacy of oral cancer screening was greatest in individuals at highest oral cancer risk. These results provide proof of principle that risk-based oral cancer screening could substantially enhance the efficiency of screening programs.

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: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

Life-Gained-Based Versus Risk-Based Selection of Smokers for Lung Cancer Screening.

Publications

Life-Gained-Based Versus Risk-Based Selection of Smokers for Lung Cancer Screening.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets