Johannes F Fahrmann1, Tracey Marsh2, Ehsan Irajizad1,3, Nikul Patel1, Eunice Murage1, Jody Vykoukal1, Jennifer B Dennison1, Kim-Anh Do3, Edwin Ostrin4, Margaret R Spitz5, Stephen Lam6, Sanjay Shete7, Rafael Meza8, Martin C Tammemägi9,10, Ziding Feng2, Samir M Hanash1. 1. Department of Clinical Cancer Prevention, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX. 2. Biostatistics Program, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA. 3. Department of Biostatistics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX. 4. Department of Pulmonary Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX. 5. Department of Medicine, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX. 6. Department of Integrative Oncology, British Columbia Cancer Research Institute, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. 7. Department of Epidemiology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX. 8. Department of Epidemiology, University of Michigan, School of Public Health, Ann Arbor, MI. 9. Prevention and Cancer Control, Ontario Health (Cancer Care Ontario), Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 10. Department of Health Sciences, Brock University, St Catharines, Ontario, Canada.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To investigate whether a panel of circulating protein biomarkers would improve risk assessment for lung cancer screening in combination with a risk model on the basis of participant characteristics. METHODS: A blinded validation study was performed using prostate lung colorectal ovarian (PLCO) Cancer Screening Trial data and biospecimens to evaluate the performance of a four-marker protein panel (4MP) consisting of the precursor form of surfactant protein B, cancer antigen 125, carcinoembryonic antigen, and cytokeratin-19 fragment in combination with a lung cancer risk prediction model (PLCOm2012) compared with current US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) screening criteria. The 4MP was assayed in 1,299 sera collected preceding lung cancer diagnosis and 8,709 noncase sera. RESULTS: The 4MP alone yielded an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.79 (95% CI, 0.77 to 0.82) for case sera collected within 1-year preceding diagnosis and 0.74 (95% CI, 0.72 to 0.76) among the entire specimen set. The combined 4MP + PLCOm2012 model yielded an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.85 (95% CI, 0.82 to 0.88) for case sera collected within 1 year preceding diagnosis. The benefit of the 4MP in the combined model resulted from improvement in sensitivity at high specificity. Compared with the USPSTF2021 criteria, the combined 4MP + PLCOm2012 model exhibited statistically significant improvements in sensitivity and specificity. Among PLCO participants with ≥ 10 smoking pack-years, the 4MP + PLCOm2012 model would have identified for annual screening 9.2% more lung cancer cases and would have reduced referral by 13.7% among noncases compared with USPSTF2021 criteria. CONCLUSION: A blood-based biomarker panel in combination with PLCOm2012 significantly improves lung cancer risk assessment for lung cancer screening.
PURPOSE: To investigate whether a panel of circulating protein biomarkers would improve risk assessment for lung cancer screening in combination with a risk model on the basis of participant characteristics. METHODS: A blinded validation study was performed using prostate lung colorectal ovarian (PLCO) Cancer Screening Trial data and biospecimens to evaluate the performance of a four-marker protein panel (4MP) consisting of the precursor form of surfactant protein B, cancer antigen 125, carcinoembryonic antigen, and cytokeratin-19 fragment in combination with a lung cancer risk prediction model (PLCOm2012) compared with current US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) screening criteria. The 4MP was assayed in 1,299 sera collected preceding lung cancer diagnosis and 8,709 noncase sera. RESULTS: The 4MP alone yielded an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.79 (95% CI, 0.77 to 0.82) for case sera collected within 1-year preceding diagnosis and 0.74 (95% CI, 0.72 to 0.76) among the entire specimen set. The combined 4MP + PLCOm2012 model yielded an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.85 (95% CI, 0.82 to 0.88) for case sera collected within 1 year preceding diagnosis. The benefit of the 4MP in the combined model resulted from improvement in sensitivity at high specificity. Compared with the USPSTF2021 criteria, the combined 4MP + PLCOm2012 model exhibited statistically significant improvements in sensitivity and specificity. Among PLCO participants with ≥ 10 smoking pack-years, the 4MP + PLCOm2012 model would have identified for annual screening 9.2% more lung cancer cases and would have reduced referral by 13.7% among noncases compared with USPSTF2021 criteria. CONCLUSION: A blood-based biomarker panel in combination with PLCOm2012 significantly improves lung cancer risk assessment for lung cancer screening.
Authors: Denise R Aberle; Christine D Berg; William C Black; Timothy R Church; Richard M Fagerstrom; Barbara Galen; Ilana F Gareen; Constantine Gatsonis; Jonathan Goldin; John K Gohagan; Bruce Hillman; Carl Jaffe; Barnett S Kramer; David Lynch; Pamela M Marcus; Mitchell Schnall; Daniel C Sullivan; Dorothy Sullivan; Carl J Zylak Journal: Radiology Date: 2010-11-02 Impact factor: 11.105
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
Authors: Danielle M Carrick; Amanda Black; John K Gohagan; Asia Khan; Karen Pettit; Craig Williams; Kelly Yu; Susan Yurgalevitch; Wen-Yi Huang; Claire Zhu Journal: Rev Recent Clin Trials Date: 2015
Authors: Kevin Ten Haaf; Mehrad Bastani; Pianpian Cao; Jihyoun Jeon; Iakovos Toumazis; Summer S Han; Sylvia K Plevritis; Erik F Blom; Chung Yin Kong; Martin C Tammemägi; Eric J Feuer; Rafael Meza; Harry J de Koning Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2020-05-01 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Stacey A Fedewa; Ella A Kazerooni; Jamie L Studts; Robert A Smith; Priti Bandi; Ann Goding Sauer; Megan Cotter; Helmneh M Sineshaw; Ahmedin Jemal; Gerard A Silvestri Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2021-08-02 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Paul Hofman; George A Calin; Sandurai A Mani; Christophe Bontoux; Marius Ilié; Ignacio I Wistuba Journal: Cancers (Basel) Date: 2022-09-04 Impact factor: 6.575