Dataset Information

Comparative performance of lung cancer risk models to define lung screening eligibility in the United Kingdom.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The National Health Service England (NHS) classifies individuals as eligible for lung cancer screening using two risk prediction models, PLCOm2012 and Liverpool Lung Project-v2 (LLPv2). However, no study has compared the performance of lung cancer risk models in the UK.

Methods

We analysed current and former smokers aged 40-80 years in the UK Biobank (N = 217,199), EPIC-UK (N = 30,813), and Generations Study (N = 25,777). We quantified model calibration (ratio of expected to observed cases, E/O) and discrimination (AUC).

Results

Risk discrimination in UK Biobank was best for the Lung Cancer Death Risk Assessment Tool (LCDRAT, AUC = 0.82, 95% CI = 0.81-0.84), followed by the LCRAT (AUC = 0.81, 95% CI = 0.79-0.82) and the Bach model (AUC = 0.80, 95% CI = 0.79-0.81). Results were similar in EPIC-UK and the Generations Study. All models overestimated risk in all cohorts, with E/O in UK Biobank ranging from 1.20 for LLPv3 (95% CI = 1.14-1.27) to 2.16 for LLPv2 (95% CI = 2.05-2.28). Overestimation increased with area-level socioeconomic status. In the combined cohorts, USPSTF 2013 criteria classified 50.7% of future cases as screening eligible. The LCDRAT and LCRAT identified 60.9%, followed by PLCOm2012 (58.3%), Bach (58.0%), LLPv3 (56.6%), and LLPv2 (53.7%).

Conclusion

In UK cohorts, the ability of risk prediction models to classify future lung cancer cases as eligible for screening was best for LCDRAT/LCRAT, very good for PLCOm2012, and lowest for LLPv2. Our results highlight the importance of validating prediction tools in specific countries.

SUBMITTER: Robbins HA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8184952 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceUsing race and ethnicity in clinical prediction models can reduce or inadvertently increase racial and ethnic disparities in medical decisions.ObjectiveTo compare eligibility for lung cancer screening in a contemporary representative US population by refitting the life-years gained from screening-computed tomography (LYFS-CT) model to exclude race and ethnicity vs a counterfactual eligibility approach that recalculates life expectancy for racial and ethnic minority individuals using the same covariates but substitutes White race and uses the higher predicted life expectancy, ensuring that historically underserved groups are not penalized.Design, setting, and participantsThe 2 submodels composing LYFS-CT NoRace were refit and externally validated without race and ethnicity: the lung cancer death submodel in participants of a large clinical trial (recruited 1993-2001; followed up until December 31, 2009) who ever smoked (n = 39 180) and the all-cause mortality submodel in the National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) 1997-2001 participants aged 40 to 80 years who ever smoked (n = 74 842, followed up until December 31, 2006). Screening eligibility was examined in NHIS 2015-2018 participants aged 50 to 80 years who ever smoked. Data were analyzed from June 2021 to September 2022.ExposureIncluding and removing race and ethnicity (African American, Asian American, Hispanic American, White) in each LYFS-CT submodel.Main outcomes and measuresBy race and ethnicity: calibration of the LYFS-CT NoRace model and the counterfactual approach (ratio of expected to observed [E/O] outcomes), US individuals eligible for screening, predicted days of life gained from screening by LYFS-CT.ResultsThe NHIS 2015-2018 included 25 601 individuals aged 50 to 80 years who ever smoked (2769 African American, 649 Asian American, 1855 Hispanic American, and 20 328 White individuals). Removing race and ethnicity from the submodels underestimated lung cancer death risk (expected/observed [E/O], 0.72; 95% CI, 0.52-1.00) and all-cause mortality (E/O, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.86-0.94) in African American individuals. It also overestimated mortality in Hispanic American (E/O, 1.08, 95% CI, 1.00-1.16) and Asian American individuals (E/O, 1.14, 95% CI, 1.01-1.30). Consequently, the LYFS-CT NoRace model increased Hispanic American and Asian American eligibility by 108% and 73%, respectively, while reducing African American eligibility by 39%. Using LYFS-CT with the counterfactual all-cause mortality model better maintained calibration across groups and increased African American eligibility by 13% without reducing eligibility for Hispanic American and Asian American individuals.Conclusions and relevanceIn this study, removing race and ethnicity miscalibrated LYFS-CT submodels and substantially reduced African American eligibility for lung cancer screening. Under counterfactual eligibility, no one became ineligible, and African American eligibility increased, demonstrating the potential for maintaining model accuracy while reducing disparities.

Project description:Background & aimsGuidelines recommend hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) surveillance in patients with chronic HBV infection. Several HCC risk prediction models are available to guide surveillance decisions, but their comparative performance remains unclear.MethodsUsing a retrospective cohort of patients with HBV treated with nucleos(t)ide analogues at 130 Veterans Administration facilities between 9/1/2008 and 12/31/2018, we calculated risk scores from 10 HCC risk prediction models (REACH-B, PAGE-B, m-PAGE-B, CU-HCC, HCC-RESCUE, CAMD, APA-B, REAL-B, AASL-HCC, RWS-HCC). We estimated the models' discrimination and calibration. We calculated HCC incidence in risk categories defined by the reported cut-offs for all models.ResultsOf 3,101 patients with HBV (32.2% with cirrhosis), 47.0% were treated with entecavir, 40.6% tenofovir, and 12.4% received both. During a median follow-up of 4.5 years, 113 patients developed HCC at an incidence of 0.75/100 person-years. AUC values for 3-year HCC risk were the highest for RWS-HCC, APA-B, REAL-B, and AASL-HCC (all >0.80). Of these, 3 (APA-B, RWS-HCC, REAL-B) incorporated alpha-fetoprotein. AUC values for the other models ranged from 0.73 for PAGE-B to 0.79 for CAMD and HCC-RESCUE. Of the 7 models with AUC >0.75, only APA-B was poorly calibrated. In total, 10-20% of the cohort was deemed low-risk based on the published cut-offs. None of the patients in the low-risk groups defined by PAGE-B, m-PAGE-B, AASL-HCC, and REAL-B developed HCC during the study timeframe.ConclusionIn this national cohort of US-based patients with HBV on antiviral treatment, most models performed well in predicting HCC risk. A low-risk group, in which no cases of HCC occurred within a 3-year timeframe, was identified by several models (PAGE-B, m-PAGE-B, CAMD, AASL-HCC, REAL-B). Further studies are warranted to examine whether these patients could be excluded from HCC surveillance.Lay summaryRisk prediction models for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in patients infected with hepatitis B virus (HBV) could guide HCC surveillance decisions. In this large cohort of US-based patients receiving treatment for HBV, most published models discriminated between those who did or did not develop HCC, although the RWS-HCC, REAL-B, and AASL-HCC performed the best. If confirmed in future studies, these models could help identify a low-risk subset of patients on antiviral treatment who could be excluded from HCC surveillance.