Dataset Information

Selecting lung cancer screenees using risk prediction models-where do we go from here.

ABSTRACT: The National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) demonstrated that low dose computed tomography (LDCT) screening could reduce lung cancer mortality by 20% in high-risk individuals. The United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) and Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) approved lung cancer screening. The NLST, USPSTF and CMS define high risk as smoking ?30 pack-years, smoking within the past 15 years, and being ages 55-74, 55-80 or 55-77. Retrospective studies demonstrated selection using model-estimated risk is superior to NLST-like criteria: higher sensitivity and positive predictive value (PPV), more deaths averted and higher cost-effectiveness. Projects are underway that may additionally support use of risk to determine eligibility. Firstly, the International Lung Screen Trial (ILST) is prospectively enrolling 4,000 individuals for screening if individuals have PLCOm2012 model risk ?1.5% or are USPSTF+ve. Six-year follow-up will allow comparisons. Interim results support the risk approach. Secondly, Cancer Care Ontario started the Lung Cancer Screening Pilot for People at High Risk in order to find optimal design for province-wide programmatic screening. They are enrolling 3,000 individuals to screening based on PLCOm2012 risk ?2%. Some hesitation to recommend screening selection based on model risk comes from the observation that selected individuals are older, have more comorbidities, are expected to have fewer life years and quality-adjusted life years (QALY) and are more likely to die from competing causes. We show that 25.6% of NLST eligible smokers are at low risk (6-year lung cancer incidence proportion =0.008). This group will not benefit from screening but has lower age, fewer comorbidities and fewer competing causes of death. When they are excluded from the NLST+ve group, age, comorbidity count and competing causes of death are similar to those in the PLCOm2012+ve group. In some jurisdictions, model-based lung cancer screening selection needs to take into consideration the elevated risk in blacks and indigenous peoples.

SUBMITTER: Tammemagi MC

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6037970 | biostudies-other | 2018 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Selecting lung cancer screenees using risk prediction models-where do we go from here.

Tammemägi Martin C MC

Translational lung cancer research 20180601 3

The National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) demonstrated that low dose computed tomography (LDCT) screening could reduce lung cancer mortality by 20% in high-risk individuals. The United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) and Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) approved lung cancer screening. The NLST, USPSTF and CMS define high risk as smoking ≥30 pack-years, smoking within the past 15 years, and being ages 55-74, 55-80 or 55-77. Retrospective studies demonstrated selectio ...[more]

PMID: 30050763

Similar Datasets

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: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:In the US, there are ~250,000 new lung cancer diagnoses and ~130,000 deaths per year, and worldwide there are an estimated 1.6 million deaths per year from this deadly disease. Lung cancer is the most common cause of cancer death worldwide, and it accounts for roughly a quarter of all cancer deaths in the US. Non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) represents 80-85% of these cases. Due to an enormous tobacco cessation effort, NSCLC rates in the US are decreasing, and the implementation of lung cancer screening guidelines and other programs have resulted in a higher percentage of patients presenting with potentially curable locoregional disease, instead of distant disease. Exciting developments in molecular targeted therapy and immunotherapy have resulted in dramatic improvement in patients' survival, in combination with new surgical, pathological, radiographical, and radiation techniques. Concurrent platinum-based doublet chemoradiation therapy followed by immunotherapy has set the benchmark for survival in these patients. However, despite these advances, ~50% of patients diagnosed with locally advanced NSCLC (LA-NSCLC) survive long-term. In patients with local and/or locoregional disease, chemoradiation is a critical component of curative therapy. However, there remains a significant clinical gap in improving the efficacy of this combined therapy, and the development of non-overlapping treatment approaches to improve treatment outcomes is needed. One potential promising avenue of research is targeting cancer metabolism. In this review, we will initially provide a brief general overview of tumor metabolism as it relates to therapeutic targeting. We will then focus on the intersection of metabolism on both oxidative stress and anti-tumor immunity. This will be followed by discussion of both tumor- and patient-specific opportunities for metabolic targeting in NSCLC. We will then conclude with a discussion of additional agents currently in development that may be advantageous to combine with chemo-immuno-radiation in NSCLC.

Project description:ImportanceThe clinical value of current multifactorial algorithms for individualized assessment of dementia risk remains unclear.ObjectiveTo evaluate the clinical value associated with 4 widely used dementia risk scores in estimating 10-year dementia risk.Design, setting, and participantsThis prospective population-based UK Biobank cohort study assessed 4 dementia risk scores at baseline (2006-2010) and ascertained incident dementia during the following 10 years. Replication with a 20-year follow-up was based on the British Whitehall II study. For both analyses, participants who had no dementia at baseline, had complete data on at least 1 dementia risk score, and were linked to electronic health records from hospitalizations or mortality were included. Data analysis was conducted from July 5, 2022, to April 20, 2023.ExposuresFour existing dementia risk scores: the Cardiovascular Risk Factors, Aging and Dementia (CAIDE)-Clinical score, the CAIDE-APOE-supplemented score, the Brief Dementia Screening Indicator (BDSI), and the Australian National University Alzheimer Disease Risk Index (ANU-ADRI).Main outcomes and measuresDementia was ascertained from linked electronic health records. To evaluate how well each score predicted the 10-year risk of dementia, concordance (C) statistics, detection rate, false-positive rate, and the ratio of true to false positives were calculated for each risk score and for a model including age alone.ResultsOf 465 929 UK Biobank participants without dementia at baseline (mean [SD] age, 56.5 [8.1] years; range, 38-73 years; 252 778 [54.3%] female participants), 3421 were diagnosed with dementia at follow-up (7.5 per 10 000 person-years). If the threshold for a positive test result was calibrated to achieve a 5% false-positive rate, all 4 risk scores detected 9% to 16% of incident dementia and therefore missed 84% to 91% (failure rate). The corresponding failure rate was 84% for a model that included age only. For a positive test result calibrated to detect at least half of future incident dementia, the ratio of true to false positives ranged between 1 to 66 (for CAIDE-APOE-supplemented) and 1 to 116 (for ANU-ADRI). For age alone, the ratio was 1 to 43. The C statistic was 0.66 (95% CI, 0.65-0.67) for the CAIDE clinical version, 0.73 (95% CI, 0.72-0.73) for the CAIDE-APOE-supplemented, 0.68 (95% CI, 0.67-0.69) for BDSI, 0.59 (95% CI, 0.58-0.60) for ANU-ADRI, and 0.79 (95% CI, 0.79-0.80) for age alone. Similar C statistics were seen for 20-year dementia risk in the Whitehall II study cohort, which included 4865 participants (mean [SD] age, 54.9 [5.9] years; 1342 [27.6%] female participants). In a subgroup analysis of same-aged participants aged 65 (±1) years, discriminatory capacity of risk scores was low (C statistics between 0.52 and 0.60).Conclusions and relevanceIn these cohort studies, individualized assessments of dementia risk using existing risk prediction scores had high error rates. These findings suggest that the scores were of limited value in targeting people for dementia prevention. Further research is needed to develop more accurate algorithms for estimation of dementia risk.

Dataset Information

Selecting lung cancer screenees using risk prediction models-where do we go from here.

Publications

Selecting lung cancer screenees using risk prediction models-where do we go from here.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets