Comparative performance of lung cancer risk models to define lung screening eligibility in the United Kingdom
Authors
Robbins H AAlcala K
Swerdlow A J
Schoemaker M J
Wareham N
Travis R C
Crosbie Philip A J
Callister M
Baldwin D R
Landy R
Johansson M
Affiliation
International Agency for Research on Cancer, Lyon, France.Issue Date
2021
Metadata
Show full item recordAbstract
Background: The National Health Service England (NHS) classifies individuals as eligible for lung cancer screening using two risk prediction models, PLCOm2012 and Liverpool Lung Project-v2 (LLPv2). However, no study has compared the performance of lung cancer risk models in the UK. Methods: We analysed current and former smokers aged 40-80 years in the UK Biobank (N = 217,199), EPIC-UK (N = 30,813), and Generations Study (N = 25,777). We quantified model calibration (ratio of expected to observed cases, E/O) and discrimination (AUC). Results: Risk discrimination in UK Biobank was best for the Lung Cancer Death Risk Assessment Tool (LCDRAT, AUC = 0.82, 95% CI = 0.81-0.84), followed by the LCRAT (AUC = 0.81, 95% CI = 0.79-0.82) and the Bach model (AUC = 0.80, 95% CI = 0.79-0.81). Results were similar in EPIC-UK and the Generations Study. All models overestimated risk in all cohorts, with E/O in UK Biobank ranging from 1.20 for LLPv3 (95% CI = 1.14-1.27) to 2.16 for LLPv2 (95% CI = 2.05-2.28). Overestimation increased with area-level socioeconomic status. In the combined cohorts, USPSTF 2013 criteria classified 50.7% of future cases as screening eligible. The LCDRAT and LCRAT identified 60.9%, followed by PLCOm2012 (58.3%), Bach (58.0%), LLPv3 (56.6%), and LLPv2 (53.7%). Conclusion: In UK cohorts, the ability of risk prediction models to classify future lung cancer cases as eligible for screening was best for LCDRAT/LCRAT, very good for PLCOm2012, and lowest for LLPv2. Our results highlight the importance of validating prediction tools in specific countries.Citation
Robbins HA, Alcala K, Swerdlow AJ, Schoemaker MJ, Wareham N, Travis RC, et al. Comparative performance of lung cancer risk models to define lung screening eligibility in the United Kingdom. Br J Cancer. 2021 Apr 12;124(12):2026–34.Journal
British Journal of CancerDOI
10.1038/s41416-021-01278-0PubMed ID
33846525Additional Links
https://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41416-021-01278-0Type
ArticleLanguage
enae974a485f413a2113503eed53cd6c53
10.1038/s41416-021-01278-0
Scopus Count
Collections
Related articles
- Evaluation of risk prediction models to select lung cancer screening participants in Europe: a prospective cohort consortium analysis.
- Authors: Feng X, Goodley P, Alcala K, Guida F, Kaaks R, Vermeulen R, Downward GS, Bonet C, Colorado-Yohar SM, Albanes D, Weinstein SJ, Goldberg M, Zins M, Relton C, Langhammer A, Skogholt AH, Johansson M, Robbins HA
- Issue date: 2024 Sep
- Implications of Nine Risk Prediction Models for Selecting Ever-Smokers for Computed Tomography Lung Cancer Screening.
- Authors: Katki HA, Kovalchik SA, Petito LC, Cheung LC, Jacobs E, Jemal A, Berg CD, Chaturvedi AK
- Issue date: 2018 Jul 3
- Analysis of lung cancer risk model (PLCO(M2012) and LLP(v2)) performance in a community-based lung cancer screening programme.
- Authors: Lebrett MB, Balata H, Evison M, Colligan D, Duerden R, Elton P, Greaves M, Howells J, Irion K, Karunaratne D, Lyons J, Mellor S, Myerscough A, Newton T, Sharman A, Smith E, Taylor B, Taylor S, Walsham A, Whittaker J, Barber PV, Tonge J, Robbins HA, Booton R, Crosbie PAJ
- Issue date: 2020 Aug
- Predicting the future risk of lung cancer: development, and internal and external validation of the CanPredict (lung) model in 19·67 million people and evaluation of model performance against seven other risk prediction models.
- Authors: Liao W, Coupland CAC, Burchardt J, Baldwin DR, DART initiative, Gleeson FV, Hippisley-Cox J
- Issue date: 2023 Aug
- OWL: an optimized and independently validated machine learning prediction model for lung cancer screening based on the UK Biobank, PLCO, and NLST populations.
- Authors: Pan Z, Zhang R, Shen S, Lin Y, Zhang L, Wang X, Ye Q, Wang X, Chen J, Zhao Y, Christiani DC, Li Y, Chen F, Wei Y
- Issue date: 2023 Feb