Literature DB >> 28249359

Identifying high risk individuals for targeted lung cancer screening: Independent validation of the PLCOm2012 risk prediction tool.

Marianne Weber1,2, Sarsha Yap1, David Goldsbury1, David Manners3, Martin Tammemagi4, Henry Marshall5, Fraser Brims6, Annette McWilliams7, Kwun Fong5, Yoon Jung Kang1, Michael Caruana1, Emily Banks8, Karen Canfell1,2,9.   

Abstract

Lung cancer screening with computerised tomography holds promise, but optimising the balance of benefits and harms via selection of a high risk population is critical. PLCOm2012 is a logistic regression model based on U.S. data, incorporating sociodemographic and health factors, which predicts 6-year lung cancer risk among ever-smokers, and thus may better predict those who might benefit from screening than criteria based solely on age and smoking history. We aimed to validate the performance of PLCOm2012 in predicting lung cancer outcomes in a cohort of Australian smokers. Predicted risk of lung cancer was calculated using PLCOm2012 applied to baseline data from 95,882 ever-smokers aged ≥45 years in the 45 and Up Study (2006-2009). Predictions were compared to lung cancer outcomes captured to June 2014 via linkage to population-wide health databases; a total of 1,035 subsequent lung cancer diagnoses were identified. PLCOm2012 had good discrimination (area under the receiver-operating-characteristic-curve; AUC 0.80, 95%CI 0.78-0.81) and excellent calibration (mean and 90th percentiles of absolute risk difference between observed and predicted outcomes: 0.006 and 0.016, respectively). Sensitivity (69.4%, 95%CI, 65.6-73.0%) of the PLCOm2012 criteria in the 55-74 year age group for predicting lung cancers was greater than that using criteria based on ≥30 pack-years smoking and ≤15 years quit (57.3%, 53.3-61.3%; p < 0.0001), but specificity was lower (72.0%, 71.7-72.4% versus 75.2%, 74.8-75.6%, respectively; p < 0.0001). Targeting high risk people for lung cancer screening using PLCOm2012 might improve the balance of benefits versus harms, and cost-effectiveness of lung cancer screening.
© 2017 UICC.

Entities:  

Keywords:  low dose computed tomography; lung cancer; mass screening; risk prediction model

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28249359     DOI: 10.1002/ijc.30673

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int J Cancer        ISSN: 0020-7136            Impact factor:   7.396


  22 in total

1.  Estimation of Cost for Endoscopic Screening for Esophageal Cancer in a High-Risk Population in Rural China: Results from a Population-Level Randomized Controlled Trial.

Authors:  Fuxiao Li; Xiang Li; Chuanhai Guo; Ruiping Xu; Fenglei Li; Yaqi Pan; Mengfei Liu; Zhen Liu; Chao Shi; Hui Wang; Minmin Wang; Hongrui Tian; Fangfang Liu; Ying Liu; Jingjing Li; Hong Cai; Li Yang; Zhonghu He; Yang Ke
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2019-06       Impact factor: 4.981

2.  Blood-Based Biomarker Panel for Personalized Lung Cancer Risk Assessment.

Authors:  Johannes F Fahrmann; Tracey Marsh; Ehsan Irajizad; Nikul Patel; Eunice Murage; Jody Vykoukal; Jennifer B Dennison; Kim-Anh Do; Edwin Ostrin; Margaret R Spitz; Stephen Lam; Sanjay Shete; Rafael Meza; Martin C Tammemägi; Ziding Feng; Samir M Hanash
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2022-01-07       Impact factor: 44.544

3.  Applying Risk Prediction Models to Optimize Lung Cancer Screening: Current Knowledge, Challenges, and Future Directions.

Authors:  Lori C Sakoda; Louise M Henderson; Tanner J Caverly; Karen J Wernli; Hormuzd A Katki
Journal:  Curr Epidemiol Rep       Date:  2017-10-24

4.  Comparative performance of lung cancer risk models to define lung screening eligibility in the United Kingdom.

Authors:  Hilary A Robbins; Karine Alcala; Anthony J Swerdlow; Minouk J Schoemaker; Nick Wareham; Ruth C Travis; Philip A J Crosbie; Matthew Callister; David R Baldwin; Rebecca Landy; Mattias Johansson
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2021-04-12       Impact factor: 9.075

5.  Identifying high-risk individuals for lung cancer screening: Going beyond NLST criteria.

Authors:  Marcela Fu; Noémie Travier; Juan Carlos Martín-Sánchez; Jose M Martínez-Sánchez; Carmen Vidal; Montse Garcia
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2018-04-05       Impact factor: 3.240

6.  Risk prediction model for lung cancer incorporating metabolic markers: Development and internal validation in a Chinese population.

Authors:  Zhangyan Lyu; Ni Li; Shuohua Chen; Gang Wang; Fengwei Tan; Xiaoshuang Feng; Xin Li; Yan Wen; Zhuoyu Yang; Yalong Wang; Jiang Li; Hongda Chen; Chunqing Lin; Jiansong Ren; Jufang Shi; Shouling Wu; Min Dai; Jie He
Journal:  Cancer Med       Date:  2020-04-06       Impact factor: 4.452

Review 7.  Recommendations for Implementing Lung Cancer Screening with Low-Dose Computed Tomography in Europe.

Authors:  Giulia Veronesi; David R Baldwin; Claudia I Henschke; Simone Ghislandi; Sergio Iavicoli; Matthijs Oudkerk; Harry J De Koning; Joseph Shemesh; John K Field; Javier J Zulueta; Denis Horgan; Lucia Fiestas Navarrete; Maurizio Valentino Infante; Pierluigi Novellis; Rachael L Murray; Nir Peled; Cristiano Rampinelli; Gaetano Rocco; Witold Rzyman; Giorgio Vittorio Scagliotti; Martin C Tammemagi; Luca Bertolaccini; Natthaya Triphuridet; Rowena Yip; Alexia Rossi; Suresh Senan; Giuseppe Ferrante; Kate Brain; Carlijn van der Aalst; Lorenzo Bonomo; Dario Consonni; Jan P Van Meerbeeck; Patrick Maisonneuve; Silvia Novello; Anand Devaraj; Zaigham Saghir; Giuseppe Pelosi
Journal:  Cancers (Basel)       Date:  2020-06-24       Impact factor: 6.639

8.  A Validated Clinical Risk Prediction Model for Lung Cancer in Smokers of All Ages and Exposure Types: A HUNT Study.

Authors:  Maria Markaki; Ioannis Tsamardinos; Arnulf Langhammer; Vincenzo Lagani; Kristian Hveem; Oluf Dimitri Røe
Journal:  EBioMedicine       Date:  2018-03-30       Impact factor: 11.205

9.  Development and Validation of a Multivariable Lung Cancer Risk Prediction Model That Includes Low-Dose Computed Tomography Screening Results: A Secondary Analysis of Data From the National Lung Screening Trial.

Authors:  Martin C Tammemägi; Kevin Ten Haaf; Iakovos Toumazis; Chung Yin Kong; Summer S Han; Jihyoun Jeon; John Commins; Thomas Riley; Rafael Meza
Journal:  JAMA Netw Open       Date:  2019-03-01

10.  "To know or not to know…?" Push and pull in ever smokers lung screening uptake decision-making intentions.

Authors:  Janet E Tonge; Melanie Atack; Phil A Crosbie; Phil V Barber; Richard Booton; Denis Colligan
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2018-10-05       Impact factor: 3.377

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.