INTRODUCTION: Identification 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. METHODS: Prospective 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. RESULTS: During 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. CONCLUSION: The PLCO lung cancer risk models demonstrate high discrimination and calibration.
INTRODUCTION: Identification 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. METHODS: Prospective 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. RESULTS: During 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. CONCLUSION: The PLCO lung cancer risk models demonstrate high discrimination and calibration.
Authors: Anil K Chaturvedi; Charlotte A Gaydos; Patricia Agreda; Jeffrey P Holden; Nilanjan Chatterjee; James J Goedert; Neil E Caporaso; Eric A Engels Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2010-05-25 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Margaret R Spitz; Waun Ki Hong; Christopher I Amos; Xifeng Wu; Matthew B Schabath; Qiong Dong; Sanjay Shete; Carol J Etzel Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2007-05-02 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Anil K Chaturvedi; Neil E Caporaso; Hormuzd A Katki; Hui-Lee Wong; Nilanjan Chatterjee; Sharon R Pine; Stephen J Chanock; James J Goedert; Eric A Engels Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2010-04-26 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Sheila A Prindiville; Tim Byers; Fred R Hirsch; Wilbur A Franklin; York E Miller; Kieu O Vu; Holly J Wolf; Anna E Barón; Kenneth R Shroyer; Chan Zeng; Tim C Kennedy; Paul A Bunn Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2003-10 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: N Sakai; H Yabuuchi; M Kondo; Y Matsuo; T Kamitani; M Nagao; M Jinnouchi; M Yonezawa; T Kojima; Y Yano; H Honda Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2015-07-08 Impact factor: 3.039
Authors: Mathilde M Winkler Wille; Sarah J van Riel; Zaigham Saghir; Asger Dirksen; Jesper Holst Pedersen; Colin Jacobs; Laura Hohwü Thomsen; Ernst Th Scholten; Lene T Skovgaard; Bram van Ginneken Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2015-03-13 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Joshua Demb; Esther K Wei; Monika Izano; Stephen Kritchevsky; Helen Swede; Anne B Newman; Michael Shlipak; Tomi Akinyemiju; Steven Gregorich; Dejana Braithwaite Journal: J Geriatr Oncol Date: 2018-08-03 Impact factor: 3.599
Authors: Martin C Tammemägi; Hormuzd A Katki; William G Hocking; Timothy R Church; Neil Caporaso; Paul A Kvale; Anil K Chaturvedi; Gerard A Silvestri; Tom L Riley; John Commins; Christine D Berg Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2013-02-21 Impact factor: 91.245