OBJECTIVES: Lung cancer risk models should be externally validated to test generalizability and clinical usefulness. The Danish Lung Cancer Screening Trial (DLCST) is a population-based prospective cohort study, used to assess the discriminative performances of the PanCan models. METHODS:From the DLCST database, 1,152 nodules from 718 participants were included. Parsimonious and full PanCan risk prediction models were applied to DLCST data, and also coefficients of the model were recalculated using DLCST data. Receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curves and area under the curve (AUC) were used to evaluate risk discrimination. RESULTS: AUCs of 0.826-0.870 were found for DLCST data based on PanCan risk prediction models. In the DLCST, age and family history were significant predictors (p = 0.001 and p = 0.013). Female sex was not confirmed to be associated with higher risk of lung cancer; in fact opposing effects of sex were observed in the two cohorts. Thus, female sex appeared to lower the risk (p = 0.047 and p = 0.040) in the DLCST. CONCLUSIONS:High risk discrimination was validated in the DLCST cohort, mainly determined by nodule size. Age and family history of lung cancer were significant predictors and could be included in the parsimonious model. Sex appears to be a less useful predictor. KEY POINTS: • High accuracy in logistic modelling for lung cancer risk stratification of nodules. • Lung cancer risk prediction is primarily based on size of pulmonary nodules. • Nodule spiculation, age and family history of lung cancer are significant predictors. • Sex does not appear to be a useful risk predictor.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVES:Lung cancer risk models should be externally validated to test generalizability and clinical usefulness. The Danish Lung Cancer Screening Trial (DLCST) is a population-based prospective cohort study, used to assess the discriminative performances of the PanCan models. METHODS: From the DLCST database, 1,152 nodules from 718 participants were included. Parsimonious and full PanCan risk prediction models were applied to DLCST data, and also coefficients of the model were recalculated using DLCST data. Receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curves and area under the curve (AUC) were used to evaluate risk discrimination. RESULTS: AUCs of 0.826-0.870 were found for DLCST data based on PanCan risk prediction models. In the DLCST, age and family history were significant predictors (p = 0.001 and p = 0.013). Female sex was not confirmed to be associated with higher risk of lung cancer; in fact opposing effects of sex were observed in the two cohorts. Thus, female sex appeared to lower the risk (p = 0.047 and p = 0.040) in the DLCST. CONCLUSIONS: High risk discrimination was validated in the DLCST cohort, mainly determined by nodule size. Age and family history of lung cancer were significant predictors and could be included in the parsimonious model. Sex appears to be a less useful predictor. KEY POINTS: • High accuracy in logistic modelling for lung cancer risk stratification of nodules. • Lung cancer risk prediction is primarily based on size of pulmonary nodules. • Nodule spiculation, age and family history of lung cancer are significant predictors. • Sex does not appear to be a useful risk predictor.
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: Annette McWilliams; Martin C Tammemagi; John R Mayo; Heidi Roberts; Geoffrey Liu; Kam Soghrati; Kazuhiro Yasufuku; Simon Martel; Francis Laberge; Michel Gingras; Sukhinder Atkar-Khattra; Christine D Berg; Ken Evans; Richard Finley; John Yee; John English; Paola Nasute; John Goffin; Serge Puksa; Lori Stewart; Scott Tsai; Michael R Johnston; Daria Manos; Garth Nicholas; Glenwood D Goss; Jean M Seely; Kayvan Amjadi; Alain Tremblay; Paul Burrowes; Paul MacEachern; Rick Bhatia; Ming-Sound Tsao; Stephen Lam Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2013-09-05 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: C Martin Tammemagi; Paul F Pinsky; Neil E Caporaso; Paul A Kvale; William G Hocking; Timothy R Church; Thomas L Riley; John Commins; Martin M Oken; Christine D Berg; Philip C Prorok Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2011-05-23 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: David O Wilson; Joel L Weissfeld; Arzu Balkan; Jeffrey G Schragin; Carl R Fuhrman; Stephen N Fisher; Jonathan Wilson; Joseph K Leader; Jill M Siegfried; Steven D Shapiro; Frank C Sciurba Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 2008-06-19 Impact factor: 21.405
Authors: Margaret R Spitz; Carol J Etzel; Qiong Dong; Christopher I Amos; Qingyi Wei; Xifeng Wu; Waun Ki Hong Journal: Cancer Prev Res (Phila) Date: 2008-09
Authors: Asha Bonney; Reem Malouf; Corynne Marchal; David Manners; Kwun M Fong; Henry M Marshall; Louis B Irving; Renée Manser Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2022-08-03
Authors: Xiaonan Cui; Marjolein A Heuvelmans; Daiwei Han; Yingru Zhao; Shuxuan Fan; Sunyi Zheng; Grigory Sidorenkov; Harry J M Groen; Monique D Dorrius; Matthijs Oudkerk; Geertruida H de Bock; Rozemarijn Vliegenthart; Zhaoxiang Ye Journal: Transl Lung Cancer Res Date: 2019-10
Authors: Sarah J van Riel; Francesco Ciompi; Colin Jacobs; Mathilde M Winkler Wille; Ernst Th Scholten; Matiullah Naqibullah; Stephen Lam; Mathias Prokop; Cornelia Schaefer-Prokop; Bram van Ginneken Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2017-03-14 Impact factor: 5.315