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: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.

Project description:BackgroundLung cancer is a major health problem. CT lung screening can reduce lung cancer mortality through early diagnosis by at least 20%. Screening high-risk individuals is most effective. Retrospective analyses suggest that identifying individuals for screening by accurate prediction models is more efficient than using categorical age-smoking criteria, such as the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) criteria. This study prospectively compared the effectiveness of the USPSTF2013 and PLCOm2012 model eligibility criteria.MethodsIn this prospective cohort study, participants from the International Lung Screening Trial (ILST), aged 55-80 years, who were current or former smokers (ie, had ≥30 pack-years smoking history or ≤15 quit-years since last permanently quitting), and who met USPSTF2013 criteria or a PLCOm2012 risk threshold of at least 1·51% within 6 years of screening, were recruited from nine screening sites in Canada, Australia, Hong Kong, and the UK. After enrolment, patients were assessed with the USPSTF2013 criteria and the PLCOm2012 risk model with a threshold of at least 1·70% at 6 years. Data were collected locally and centralised. Main outcomes were the comparison of lung cancer detection rates and cumulative life expectancies in patients with lung cancer between USPSTF2013 criteria and the PLCOm2012 model. In this Article, we present data from an interim analysis. To estimate the incidence of lung cancers in individuals who were USPSTF2013-negative and had PLCOm2012 of less than 1·51% at 6 years, ever-smokers in the Prostate Lung Colorectal and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial (PLCO) who met these criteria and their lung cancer incidence were applied to the ILST sample size for the mean follow-up occurring in the ILST. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02871856. Study enrolment is almost complete.FindingsBetween June 17, 2015, and Dec 29, 2020, 5819 participants from the International Lung Screening Trial (ILST) were enrolled on the basis of meeting USPSTF2013 criteria or the PLCOm2012 risk threshold of at least 1·51% at 6 years. The same number of individuals was selected for the PLCOm2012 model as for the USPSTF2013 criteria (4540 [78%] of 5819). After a mean follow-up of 2·3 years (SD 1·0), 135 lung cancers occurred in 4540 USPSTF2013-positive participants and 162 in 4540 participants included in the PLCOm2012 of at least 1·70% at 6 years group (cancer sensitivity difference 15·8%, 95% CI 10·7-22·1%; absolute odds ratio 4·00, 95% CI 1·89-9·44; p<0·0001). Compared to USPSTF2013-positive individuals, PLCOm2012-selected participants were older (mean age 65·7 years [SD 5·9] vs 63·3 years [5·7]; p<0·0001), had more comorbidities (median 2 [IQR 1-3] vs 1 [1-2]; p<0·0001), and shorter life expectancy (13·9 years [95% CI 12·8-14·9] vs 14·8 [13·6-16·0] years). Model-based difference in cumulative life expectancies for those diagnosed with lung cancer were higher in those who had PLCOm2012 risk of at least 1·70% at 6 years than individuals who were USPSTF2013-positive (2248·6 years [95% CI 2089·6-2425·9] vs 2000·7 years [1841·2-2160·3]; difference 247·9 years, p=0·015).InterpretationPLCOm2012 appears to be more efficient than the USPSTF2013 criteria for selecting individuals to enrol into lung cancer screening programmes and should be used for identifying high-risk individuals who benefit from the inclusion in these programmes.FundingTerry Fox Research Institute, The UBC-VGH Hospital Foundation and the BC Cancer Foundation, the Alberta Cancer Foundation, the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council, Cancer Research UK and a consortium of funders, and the Roy Castle Lung Cancer Foundation for the UK Lung Screen Uptake Trial.

Project description:BackgroundRisk-prediction models have been proposed to select individuals for lung cancer screening. However, their long-term effects are uncertain. This study evaluates long-term benefits and harms of risk-based screening compared with current United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommendations.MethodsFour independent natural history models were used to perform a comparative modeling study evaluating long-term benefits and harms of selecting individuals for lung cancer screening through risk-prediction models. In total, 363 risk-based screening strategies varying by screening starting and stopping age, risk-prediction model used for eligibility (Bach, PLCOm2012, or Lung Cancer Death Risk Assessment Tool [LCDRAT]), and risk threshold were evaluated for a 1950 US birth cohort. Among the evaluated outcomes were percentage of individuals ever screened, screens required, lung cancer deaths averted, life-years gained, and overdiagnosis.ResultsRisk-based screening strategies requiring similar screens among individuals ages 55-80 years as the USPSTF criteria (corresponding risk thresholds: Bach = 2.8%; PLCOm2012 = 1.7%; LCDRAT = 1.7%) averted considerably more lung cancer deaths (Bach = 693; PLCOm2012 = 698; LCDRAT = 696; USPSTF = 613). However, life-years gained were only modestly higher (Bach = 8660; PLCOm2012 = 8862; LCDRAT = 8631; USPSTF = 8590), and risk-based strategies had more overdiagnosed cases (Bach = 149; PLCOm2012 = 147; LCDRAT = 150; USPSTF = 115). Sensitivity analyses suggest excluding individuals with limited life expectancies (<5?years) from screening retains the life-years gained by risk-based screening, while reducing overdiagnosis by more than 65.3%.ConclusionsRisk-based lung cancer screening strategies prevent considerably more lung cancer deaths than current recommendations do. However, they yield modest additional life-years and increased overdiagnosis because of predominantly selecting older individuals. Efficient implementation of risk-based lung cancer screening requires careful consideration of life expectancy for determining optimal individual stopping ages.