Lori C Sakoda1, Louise M Henderson2, Tanner J Caverly3,4, Karen J Wernli5, Hormuzd A Katki6. 1. Division of Research, Kaiser Permanente Northern California, Oakland, CA USA. 2. Department of Radiology, University of North Carolina School of Medicine, Chapel Hill, NC USA. 3. Center for Clinical Management Research, Veteran Affairs Ann Arbor Healthcare System, Ann Arbor, MI USA. 4. Department of Internal Medicine, University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, MI USA. 5. Kaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute, Seattle, WA USA. 6. Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Rockville, MD USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Risk prediction models may be useful for facilitating effective and high-quality decision-making at critical steps in the lung cancer screening process. This review provides a current overview of published lung cancer risk prediction models and their applications to lung cancer screening and highlights both challenges and strategies for improving their predictive performance and use in clinical practice. RECENT FINDINGS: Since the 2011 publication of the National Lung Screening Trial results, numerous prediction models have been proposed to estimate the probability of developing or dying from lung cancer or the probability that a pulmonary nodule is malignant. Respective models appear to exhibit high discriminatory accuracy in identifying individuals at highest risk of lung cancer or differentiating malignant from benign pulmonary nodules. However, validation and critical comparison of the performance of these models in independent populations are limited. Little is also known about the extent to which risk prediction models are being applied in clinical practice and influencing decision-making processes and outcomes related to lung cancer screening. SUMMARY: Current evidence is insufficient to determine which lung cancer risk prediction models are most clinically useful and how to best implement their use to optimize screening effectiveness and quality. To address these knowledge gaps, future research should be directed toward validating and enhancing existing risk prediction models for lung cancer and evaluating the application of model-based risk calculators and its corresponding impact on screening processes and outcomes.
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Risk prediction models may be useful for facilitating effective and high-quality decision-making at critical steps in the lung cancer screening process. This review provides a current overview of published lung cancer risk prediction models and their applications to lung cancer screening and highlights both challenges and strategies for improving their predictive performance and use in clinical practice. RECENT FINDINGS: Since the 2011 publication of the National Lung Screening Trial results, numerous prediction models have been proposed to estimate the probability of developing or dying from lung cancer or the probability that a pulmonary nodule is malignant. Respective models appear to exhibit high discriminatory accuracy in identifying individuals at highest risk of lung cancer or differentiating malignant from benign pulmonary nodules. However, validation and critical comparison of the performance of these models in independent populations are limited. Little is also known about the extent to which risk prediction models are being applied in clinical practice and influencing decision-making processes and outcomes related to lung cancer screening. SUMMARY: Current evidence is insufficient to determine which lung cancer risk prediction models are most clinically useful and how to best implement their use to optimize screening effectiveness and quality. To address these knowledge gaps, future research should be directed toward validating and enhancing existing risk prediction models for lung cancer and evaluating the application of model-based risk calculators and its corresponding impact on screening processes and outcomes.
Authors: Kathleen A Cronin; Mitchell H Gail; Zhaohui Zou; Peter B Bach; Jarmo Virtamo; Demetrius Albanes Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2006-05-03 Impact factor: 13.506
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: Margaret R Spitz; Christopher I Amos; Susan Land; Xifeng Wu; Qiong Dong; Angela S Wenzlaff; Ann G Schwartz Journal: J Thorac Oncol Date: 2013-04 Impact factor: 15.609
Authors: A M D'Amelio; A Cassidy; K Asomaning; O Y Raji; S W Duffy; J K Field; M R Spitz; D Christiani; C J Etzel Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2010-06-29 Impact factor: 7.640
Authors: Henry Zhao; Henry M Marshall; Ian A Yang; Rayleen V Bowman; John Ayres; Jane Crossin; Melanie Lau; Richard E Slaughter; Stanley Redmond; Linda Passmore; Elizabeth McCaul; Deborah Courtney; Steven C Leong; Morgan Windsor; Paul V Zimmerman; Kwun M Fong Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2016-02-16 Impact factor: 3.039
Authors: Paul K J Han; Christine Lary; Adam Black; Caitlin Gutheil; Hayley Mandeville; Jason Yahwak; Mayuko Fukunaga Journal: Med Decis Making Date: 2019-10-20 Impact factor: 2.583
Authors: Erika A Waters; Jeremy L Foust; Laura D Scherer; Amy McQueen; Jennifer M Taber Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2021-01-25 Impact factor: 5.428