Correction: Risk prediction models for selection of lung cancer screening candidates: A retrospective validation study.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Ten Haaf K
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7518586 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Sep
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Correction: 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 20200925 9
[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1002277.]. ...[more]
Similar Datasets
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.
| S-EPMC5380315 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC3131220 | biostudies-literature
Project description:An amendment to this paper has been published and can be accessed via a link at the top of the paper.
| S-EPMC7217758 | biostudies-literature
Project description: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.
| S-EPMC4899131 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Purpose of review:Risk prediction models may be useful for facilitating effective and high-quality decision-making at critical steps in the lung cancer screening process. This review provides a current overview of published lung cancer risk prediction models and their applications to lung cancer screening and highlights both challenges and strategies for improving their predictive performance and use in clinical practice. Recent findings:Since the 2011 publication of the National Lung Screening Trial results, numerous prediction models have been proposed to estimate the probability of developing or dying from lung cancer or the probability that a pulmonary nodule is malignant. Respective models appear to exhibit high discriminatory accuracy in identifying individuals at highest risk of lung cancer or differentiating malignant from benign pulmonary nodules. However, validation and critical comparison of the performance of these models in independent populations are limited. Little is also known about the extent to which risk prediction models are being applied in clinical practice and influencing decision-making processes and outcomes related to lung cancer screening. Summary:Current evidence is insufficient to determine which lung cancer risk prediction models are most clinically useful and how to best implement their use to optimize screening effectiveness and quality. To address these knowledge gaps, future research should be directed toward validating and enhancing existing risk prediction models for lung cancer and evaluating the application of model-based risk calculators and its corresponding impact on screening processes and outcomes.
| S-EPMC5844483 | biostudies-literature
Project description:As randomized trials in the USA and Europe have convincingly demonstrated efficacy of lung cancer screening by computed tomography (CT), European countries are discussing the introduction of screening programs. To maintain acceptable cost-benefit and clinical benefit-to-harm ratios, screening should be offered to individuals at sufficiently elevated risk of having lung cancer. Using federal-wide survey and lung cancer incidence data (2008-2013), we examined the performance of four well-established risk models from the USA (PLCOM2012, LCRAT, Bach) and the UK (LLP2008) in the German population, comparing with standard eligibility criteria based on age limits, minimal pack years of smoking (or combination of total duration with average intensity) and maximum years since smoking cessation. The eligibility criterion recommended by the United States Preventive Services Taskforce (USPSTF) would select about 3.2 million individuals, a group equal in size to the upper fifth of ever smokers age 50-79 at highest risk, and to 11% of all adults aged 50-79. According to PLCOM2012, the model showing best concordance between numbers of lung cancer cases predicted and reported in registries, persons with 5-year risk ≥ 1.7% included about half of all lung cancer incidence in the full German population. Compared to eligibility criteria (e.g. USPSTF), risk models elected individuals in higher age groups, including ex-smokers with longer average quitting times. Further studies should address how in Germany these shifts may affect expected benefits of CT screening in terms of life-years gained versus the potential harm of age-specific increasing risk of over-diagnosis.
| S-EPMC7524688 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC6557386 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background Significant asymptomatic carotid stenosis (ACS) is associated with higher risk of strokes. While the prevalence of moderate and severe ACS is low in the general population, prediction models may allow identification of individuals at increased risk, thereby enabling targeted screening. We identified established prediction models for ACS and externally validated them in a large screening population. Methods and Results Prediction models for prevalent cases with ≥50% ACS were identified in a systematic review (975 studies reviewed and 6 prediction models identified [3 for moderate and 3 for severe ACS]) and then validated using data from 596 469 individuals who attended commercial vascular screening clinics in the United States and United Kingdom. We assessed discrimination and calibration. In the validation cohort, 11 178 (1.87%) participants had ≥50% ACS and 2033 (0.34%) had ≥70% ACS. The best model included age, sex, smoking, hypertension, hypercholesterolemia, diabetes mellitus, vascular and cerebrovascular disease, measured blood pressure, and blood lipids. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve for this model was 0.75 (95% CI, 0.74-0.75) for ≥50% ACS and 0.78 (95% CI, 0.77-0.79) for ≥70% ACS. The prevalence of ≥50% ACS in the highest decile of risk was 6.51%, and 1.42% for ≥70% ACS. Targeted screening of the 10% highest risk identified 35% of cases with ≥50% ACS and 42% of cases with ≥70% ACS. Conclusions Individuals at high risk of significant ACS can be selected reliably using a prediction model. The best-performing prediction models identified over one third of all cases by targeted screening of individuals in the highest decile of risk only.
| S-EPMC7428515 | biostudies-literature
Project description:We aimed to validate three IgAN risk models proposed by an international collaborative study and another CKD risk model generated by an extended CKD cohort with our multicenter Chinese IgAN cohort. Biopsy-proven IgAN patients with an eGFR ≥15 ml/min/1.73 m2 at baseline and a minimum follow-up of 6 months were enrolled. The primary outcomes were a composite outcome (50% decline in eGFR or ESRD) and ESRD. The performance of those models was assessed using discrimination, calibration, and reclassification. A total of 2,300 eligible cases were enrolled. Of them, 288 (12.5%) patients reached composite outcome and 214 (9.3%) patients reached ESRD during a median follow-up period of 30 months. Using the composite outcome for analysis, the Clinical, Limited, Full, and CKD models had relatively good performance with similar C statistics (0.81, 0.81, 0.82, and 0.82, respectively). While using ESRD as the end point, the four prediction models had better performance (all C statistics > 0.9). Furthermore, subgroup analysis showed that the models containing clinical and pathological variables (Full model and Limited model) had better discriminatory abilities than the models including only clinical indicators (Clinical model and CKD model) in low-risk patients characterized by higher baseline eGFR (≥60 ml/min/1.73 m2). In conclusion, we validated recently reported IgAN and CKD risk models in our Chinese IgAN cohort. Compared to pure clinical models, adding pathological variables will increase performance in predicting ESRD in low-risk IgAN patients with baseline eGFR ≥60 ml/min/1.73 m2.
| S-EPMC8554097 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC2854402 | biostudies-other