Literature DB >> 27179989

Development and Validation of Risk Models to Select Ever-Smokers for CT Lung Cancer Screening.

Hormuzd A Katki1, Stephanie A Kovalchik2, Christine D Berg3, Li C Cheung4, Anil K Chaturvedi1.   

Abstract

IMPORTANCE: The US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommends computed tomography (CT) lung cancer screening for ever-smokers aged 55 to 80 years who have smoked at least 30 pack-years with no more than 15 years since quitting. However, selecting ever-smokers for screening using individualized lung cancer risk calculations may be more effective and efficient than current USPSTF recommendations.
OBJECTIVE: Comparison of modeled outcomes from risk-based CT lung-screening strategies vs USPSTF recommendations. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Empirical risk models for lung cancer incidence and death in the absence of CT screening using data on ever-smokers from the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial (PLCO; 1993-2009) control group. Covariates included age; education; sex; race; smoking intensity, duration, and quit-years; body mass index; family history of lung cancer; and self-reported emphysema. Model validation in the chest radiography groups of the PLCO and the National Lung Screening Trial (NLST; 2002-2009), with additional validation of the death model in the National Health Interview Survey (NHIS; 1997-2001), a representative sample of the United States. Models were applied to US ever-smokers aged 50 to 80 years (NHIS 2010-2012) to estimate outcomes of risk-based selection for CT lung screening, assuming screening for all ever-smokers, yield the percent changes in lung cancer detection and death observed in the NLST. EXPOSURES: Annual CT lung screening for 3 years beginning at age 50 years. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: For model validity: calibration (number of model-predicted cases divided by number of observed cases [estimated/observed]) and discrimination (area under curve [AUC]). For modeled screening outcomes: estimated number of screen-avertable lung cancer deaths and estimated screening effectiveness (number needed to screen [NNS] to prevent 1 lung cancer death).
RESULTS: Lung cancer incidence and death risk models were well calibrated in PLCO and NLST. The lung cancer death model calibrated and discriminated well for US ever-smokers aged 50 to 80 years (NHIS 1997-2001: estimated/observed = 0.94 [95%CI, 0.84-1.05]; AUC, 0.78 [95%CI, 0.76-0.80]). Under USPSTF recommendations, the models estimated 9.0 million US ever-smokers would qualify for lung cancer screening and 46,488 (95% CI, 43,924-49,053) lung cancer deaths were estimated as screen-avertable over 5 years (estimated NNS, 194 [95% CI, 187-201]). In contrast, risk-based selection screening of the same number of ever-smokers (9.0 million) at highest 5-year lung cancer risk (≥1.9%) was estimated to avert 20% more deaths (55,717 [95% CI, 53,033-58,400]) and was estimated to reduce the estimated NNS by 17% (NNS, 162 [95% CI, 157-166]). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Among a cohort of US ever-smokers aged 50 to 80 years, application of a risk-based model for CT screening for lung cancer compared with a model based on USPSTF recommendations was estimated to be associated with a greater number of lung cancer deaths prevented over 5 years, along with a lower NNS to prevent 1 lung cancer death.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27179989      PMCID: PMC4899131          DOI: 10.1001/jama.2016.6255

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  JAMA        ISSN: 0098-7484            Impact factor:   56.272


  31 in total

1.  Healthy volunteer effect in a lung cancer screening study.

Authors:  Tapio Vehmas; Panu Oksa
Journal:  Eur J Cancer Prev       Date:  2015-09       Impact factor: 2.497

2.  A risk model for prediction of lung cancer.

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

3.  Benchmarking CIN 3+ risk as the basis for incorporating HPV and Pap cotesting into cervical screening and management guidelines.

Authors:  Hormuzd A Katki; Mark Schiffman; Philip E Castle; Barbara Fetterman; Nancy E Poitras; Thomas Lorey; Li C Cheung; Tina Raine-Bennett; Julia C Gage; Walter K Kinney
Journal:  J Low Genit Tract Dis       Date:  2013-04       Impact factor: 1.925

4.  Cost-effectiveness of CT screening in the National Lung Screening Trial.

Authors:  William C Black; Ilana F Gareen; Samir S Soneji; JoRean D Sicks; Emmett B Keeler; Denise R Aberle; Arash Naeim; Timothy R Church; Gerard A Silvestri; Jeremy Gorelick; Constantine Gatsonis
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2014-11-06       Impact factor: 91.245

Review 5.  Application of risk prediction models to lung cancer screening: a review.

Authors:  Martin C Tammemägi
Journal:  J Thorac Imaging       Date:  2015-03       Impact factor: 3.000

6.  Comparative analysis of 5 lung cancer natural history and screening models that reproduce outcomes of the NLST and PLCO trials.

Authors:  Rafael Meza; Kevin ten Haaf; Chung Yin Kong; Ayca Erdogan; William C Black; Martin C Tammemagi; Sung Eun Choi; Jihyoun Jeon; Summer S Han; Vidit Munshi; Joost van Rosmalen; Paul Pinsky; Pamela M McMahon; Harry J de Koning; Eric J Feuer; William D Hazelton; Sylvia K Plevritis
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2014-02-27       Impact factor: 6.860

7.  Risk estimation for the next generation of prevention programmes for cervical cancer.

Authors:  Hormuzd A Katki; Sholom Wacholder; Diane Solomon; Philip E Castle; Mark Schiffman
Journal:  Lancet Oncol       Date:  2009-09-18       Impact factor: 41.316

8.  Targeting of low-dose CT screening according to the risk of lung-cancer death.

Authors:  Anil K Chaturvedi; Hormuzd A Katki; Stephanie A Kovalchik; Martin Tammemagi; Christine D Berg; Neil E Caporaso; Tom L Riley; Mary Korch; Gerard A Silvestri
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2013-07-18       Impact factor: 91.245

9.  Annual Report to the Nation on the status of cancer, 1975-2010, featuring prevalence of comorbidity and impact on survival among persons with lung, colorectal, breast, or prostate cancer.

Authors:  Brenda K Edwards; Anne-Michelle Noone; Angela B Mariotto; Edgar P Simard; Francis P Boscoe; S Jane Henley; Ahmedin Jemal; Hyunsoon Cho; Robert N Anderson; Betsy A Kohler; Christie R Eheman; Elizabeth M Ward
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2013-12-16       Impact factor: 6.860

Review 10.  The number of women who would need to be screened regularly by mammography to prevent one death from breast cancer.

Authors:  Valerie Beral; Maggie Alexander; Stephen Duffy; Ian O Ellis; Rosalind Given-Wilson; Lars Holmberg; Sue M Moss; Amanda Ramirez; Malcolm W R Reed; Caroline Rubin; Patsy Whelehan; Robin Wilson; Kenneth C Young
Journal:  J Med Screen       Date:  2011       Impact factor: 2.136

View more
  96 in total

Review 1.  Cancer Screening in the Elderly: A Review of Breast, Colorectal, Lung, and Prostate Cancer Screening.

Authors:  Ashwin A Kotwal; Mara A Schonberg
Journal:  Cancer J       Date:  2017 Jul/Aug       Impact factor: 3.360

2.  Lung Cancer Field Cancerization: Implications for Screening by Low-Dose Computed Tomography.

Authors:  Ana I Robles; Curtis C Harris
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2017-07-01       Impact factor: 13.506

3.  Region specific lung nodule management practice guideline.

Authors:  Scott Apperley; Stephen Lam
Journal:  J Thorac Dis       Date:  2016-09       Impact factor: 2.895

4.  Body mass index and mortality in lung cancer patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  J Wang; H Xu; S Zhou; D Wang; L Zhu; J Hou; J Tang; J Zhao; S Zhong
Journal:  Eur J Clin Nutr       Date:  2017-05-17       Impact factor: 4.016

5.  To Screen or Not to Screen Adults 45-49 Years of Age: That is the Question.

Authors:  Joseph C Anderson; Jewel N Samadder
Journal:  Am J Gastroenterol       Date:  2018-11-01       Impact factor: 10.864

6.  Association Between Reductions of Number of Cigarettes Smoked per Day and Mortality Among Older Adults in the United States.

Authors:  Maki Inoue-Choi; Patricia Hartge; Yikyung Park; Christian C Abnet; Neal D Freedman
Journal:  Am J Epidemiol       Date:  2019-02-01       Impact factor: 4.897

7.  The Evolution of a Regional Lung Cancer Screening Program.

Authors:  Mitchell Botney
Journal:  Mo Med       Date:  2016 Nov-Dec

8.  Outcomes From a Minority-Based Lung Cancer Screening Program vs the National Lung Screening Trial.

Authors:  Mary M Pasquinelli; Kevin L Kovitz; Matthew Koshy; Martha G Menchaca; Li Liu; Robert Winn; Lawrence E Feldman
Journal:  JAMA Oncol       Date:  2018-09-01       Impact factor: 31.777

9.  Contemporary Implications of U.S. Preventive Services Task Force and Risk-Based Guidelines for Lung Cancer Screening Eligibility in the United States.

Authors:  Rebecca Landy; Li C Cheung; Christine D Berg; Anil K Chaturvedi; Hilary A Robbins; Hormuzd A Katki
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2019-06-04       Impact factor: 25.391

10.  Identification of Candidates for Longer Lung Cancer Screening Intervals Following a Negative Low-Dose Computed Tomography Result.

Authors:  Hilary A Robbins; Christine D Berg; Li C Cheung; Anil K Chaturvedi; Hormuzd A Katki
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2019-09-01       Impact factor: 13.506

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.