Home > Publications database > Evaluation of risk prediction models to select lung cancer screening participants in Europe: a prospective cohort consortium analysis. > print

001     292455
005     20240826181330.0
024 7 _ |a 10.1016/S2589-7500(24)00123-7
|2 doi
024 7 _ |a pmid:39179310
|2 pmid
037 _ _ |a DKFZ-2024-01722
041 _ _ |a English
082 _ _ |a 610
100 1 _ |a Feng, Xiaoshuang
|b 0
245 _ _ |a Evaluation of risk prediction models to select lung cancer screening participants in Europe: a prospective cohort consortium analysis.
260 _ _ |a London
|c 2024
|b The Lancet
336 7 _ |a article
|2 DRIVER
336 7 _ |a Output Types/Journal article
|2 DataCite
336 7 _ |a Journal Article
|b journal
|m journal
|0 PUB:(DE-HGF)16
|s 1724660966_2130
|2 PUB:(DE-HGF)
336 7 _ |a ARTICLE
|2 BibTeX
336 7 _ |a JOURNAL_ARTICLE
|2 ORCID
336 7 _ |a Journal Article
|0 0
|2 EndNote
520 _ _ |a Lung cancer risk prediction models might efficiently identify individuals who should be offered lung cancer screening. However, their performance has not been comprehensively evaluated in Europe. We aimed to externally validate and evaluate the performance of several risk prediction models that predict lung cancer incidence or mortality in prospective European cohorts.We analysed 240 137 participants aged 45-80 years with a current or former smoking history from nine European countries in four prospective cohorts from the pooled database of the Lung Cancer Cohort Consortium: the Alpha-Tocopherol, Beta-Carotene Cancer Prevention Study (Finland), the Nord-Trøndelag Health Study (Norway), CONSTANCES (France), and the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (Denmark, Germany, Italy, Spain, Sweden, the Netherlands, and Norway). We evaluated ten lung cancer risk models, which comprised the Bach, the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial 2012 model (PLCOm2012), the Lung Cancer Risk Assessment Tool (LCRAT), the Lung Cancer Death Risk Assessment Tool (LCDRAT), the Nord-Trøndelag Health Study (HUNT), the Optimized Early Warning Model for Lung Cancer Risk (OWL), the University College London-Death (UCLD), the University College London-Incidence (UCLI), the Liverpool Lung Project version 2 (LLP version 2), and the Liverpool Lung Project version 3 (LLP version 3) models. We quantified model calibration as the ratio of expected to observed cases or deaths and discrimination using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). For each model, we also identified risk thresholds that would screen the same number of individuals as each of the US Preventive Services Task Force 2021 (USPSTF-2021), the US Preventive Services Task Force 2013 (USPSTF-2013), and the Nederlands-Leuvens Longkanker Screenings Onderzoek (NELSON) criteria.Among the participants, 1734 lung cancer cases and 1072 lung cancer deaths occurred within five years of enrolment. Most models had reasonable calibration in most countries, although the LLP version 2 overpredicted risk by more than 50% in eight countries (expected to observed ≥1·50). The PLCOm2012, LCDRAT, LCRAT, Bach, HUNT, OWL, UCLD, and UCLI models showed similar discrimination in most countries, with AUCs ranging from 0·68 (95% CI 0·59-0·77) to 0·83 (0·78-0·89), whereas the LLP version 2 and LLP version 3 showed lower discrimination, with AUCs ranging from 0·64 (95% CI 0·57-0·72) to 0·78 (0·74-0·83). When pooling data from all countries (but excluding the HUNT cohort), 33·9% (73 313 of 216 387) of individuals were eligible by USPSTF-2021 criteria, which included 74·8% (1185) of lung cancers and 76·3% (730) of lung cancer deaths occurring over 5 years. Fewer individuals were selected by USPSTF-2013 and NELSON criteria. After applying thresholds to select a population of equal size to USPSTF-2021, the PLCOm2012, LCDRAT, LCRAT, Bach, HUNT, OWL, UCLD, and UCLI, models identified 77·6%-79·1% of future cases, although they selected slightly older individuals compared with USPSTF-2021 criteria. Results were similar for USPSTF-2013 and NELSON.Several lung cancer risk prediction models showed good performance in European countries and might improve the efficiency of lung cancer screening if used in place of categorical eligibility criteria.US National Cancer Institute, l'Institut National du Cancer, Cancer Research UK.
536 _ _ |a 313 - Krebsrisikofaktoren und Prävention (POF4-313)
|0 G:(DE-HGF)POF4-313
|c POF4-313
|f POF IV
|x 0
588 _ _ |a Dataset connected to CrossRef, PubMed, , Journals: inrepo02.dkfz.de
650 _ 2 |a Humans
|2 MeSH
650 _ 2 |a Lung Neoplasms: diagnosis
|2 MeSH
650 _ 2 |a Lung Neoplasms: mortality
|2 MeSH
650 _ 2 |a Europe: epidemiology
|2 MeSH
650 _ 2 |a Aged
|2 MeSH
650 _ 2 |a Male
|2 MeSH
650 _ 2 |a Female
|2 MeSH
650 _ 2 |a Middle Aged
|2 MeSH
650 _ 2 |a Prospective Studies
|2 MeSH
650 _ 2 |a Early Detection of Cancer
|2 MeSH
650 _ 2 |a Risk Assessment
|2 MeSH
650 _ 2 |a Aged, 80 and over
|2 MeSH
650 _ 2 |a Incidence
|2 MeSH
650 _ 2 |a Risk Factors
|2 MeSH
700 1 _ |a Goodley, Patrick
|b 1
700 1 _ |a Alcala, Karine
|b 2
700 1 _ |a Guida, Florence
|b 3
700 1 _ |a Kaaks, Rudolf
|0 P:(DE-He78)4b2dc91c9d1ac33a1c0e0777d0c1697a
|b 4
|u dkfz
700 1 _ |a Vermeulen, Roel
|b 5
700 1 _ |a Downward, George S
|b 6
700 1 _ |a Bonet, Catalina
|b 7
700 1 _ |a Colorado-Yohar, Sandra M
|b 8
700 1 _ |a Albanes, Demetrius
|b 9
700 1 _ |a Weinstein, Stephanie J
|b 10
700 1 _ |a Goldberg, Marcel
|b 11
700 1 _ |a Zins, Marie
|b 12
700 1 _ |a Relton, Caroline
|b 13
700 1 _ |a Langhammer, Arnulf
|b 14
700 1 _ |a Skogholt, Anne Heidi
|b 15
700 1 _ |a Johansson, Mattias
|b 16
700 1 _ |a Robbins, Hilary A
|b 17
773 _ _ |a 10.1016/S2589-7500(24)00123-7
|g Vol. 6, no. 9, p. e614 - e624
|0 PERI:(DE-600)2972368-1
|n 9
|p e614 - e624
|t The lancet / Digital health
|v 6
|y 2024
|x 2589-7500
909 C O |o oai:inrepo02.dkfz.de:292455
|p VDB
910 1 _ |a Deutsches Krebsforschungszentrum
|0 I:(DE-588b)2036810-0
|k DKFZ
|b 4
|6 P:(DE-He78)4b2dc91c9d1ac33a1c0e0777d0c1697a
913 1 _ |a DE-HGF
|b Gesundheit
|l Krebsforschung
|1 G:(DE-HGF)POF4-310
|0 G:(DE-HGF)POF4-313
|3 G:(DE-HGF)POF4
|2 G:(DE-HGF)POF4-300
|4 G:(DE-HGF)POF
|v Krebsrisikofaktoren und Prävention
|x 0
914 1 _ |y 2024
915 _ _ |a JCR
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)0100
|2 StatID
|b LANCET DIGIT HEALTH : 2022
|d 2023-08-23
915 _ _ |a DBCoverage
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)0200
|2 StatID
|b SCOPUS
|d 2023-08-23
915 _ _ |a DBCoverage
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)0300
|2 StatID
|b Medline
|d 2023-08-23
915 _ _ |a DBCoverage
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)0501
|2 StatID
|b DOAJ Seal
|d 2023-05-02T08:53:13Z
915 _ _ |a DBCoverage
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)0500
|2 StatID
|b DOAJ
|d 2023-05-02T08:53:13Z
915 _ _ |a Peer Review
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)0030
|2 StatID
|b DOAJ : Anonymous peer review
|d 2023-05-02T08:53:13Z
915 _ _ |a DBCoverage
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)0199
|2 StatID
|b Clarivate Analytics Master Journal List
|d 2023-08-23
915 _ _ |a WoS
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)0113
|2 StatID
|b Science Citation Index Expanded
|d 2023-08-23
915 _ _ |a DBCoverage
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)0150
|2 StatID
|b Web of Science Core Collection
|d 2023-08-23
915 _ _ |a DBCoverage
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)0160
|2 StatID
|b Essential Science Indicators
|d 2023-08-23
915 _ _ |a DBCoverage
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)1110
|2 StatID
|b Current Contents - Clinical Medicine
|d 2023-08-23
915 _ _ |a IF >= 30
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)9930
|2 StatID
|b LANCET DIGIT HEALTH : 2022
|d 2023-08-23
915 _ _ |a Article Processing Charges
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)0561
|2 StatID
|d 2023-08-23
915 _ _ |a Fees
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)0700
|2 StatID
|d 2023-08-23
920 1 _ |0 I:(DE-He78)C020-20160331
|k C020
|l C020 Epidemiologie von Krebs
|x 0
980 _ _ |a journal
980 _ _ |a VDB
980 _ _ |a I:(DE-He78)C020-20160331
980 _ _ |a UNRESTRICTED

LibraryCollectionCLSMajorCLSMinorLanguageAuthor
Marc 21