Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2012 Aug 21;157(4):242-50.
doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-157-4-201208210-00004.

Predictive accuracy of the Liverpool Lung Project risk model for stratifying patients for computed tomography screening for lung cancer: a case-control and cohort validation study

Olaide Y Raji  1 , Stephen W Duffy, Olorunshola F Agbaje, Stuart G Baker, David C Christiani, Adrian Cassidy, John K Field
Affiliations

Predictive accuracy of the Liverpool Lung Project risk model for stratifying patients for computed tomography screening for lung cancer: a case-control and cohort validation study

Olaide Y Raji et al. Ann Intern Med. .

Abstract

Background: External validation of existing lung cancer risk prediction models is limited. Using such models in clinical practice to guide the referral of patients for computed tomography (CT) screening for lung cancer depends on external validation and evidence of predicted clinical benefit.

Objective: To evaluate the discrimination of the Liverpool Lung Project (LLP) risk model and demonstrate its predicted benefit for stratifying patients for CT screening by using data from 3 independent studies from Europe and North America.

Design: Case-control and prospective cohort study.

Setting: Europe and North America.

Patients: Participants in the European Early Lung Cancer (EUELC) and Harvard case-control studies and the LLP population-based prospective cohort (LLPC) study.

Measurements: 5-year absolute risks for lung cancer predicted by the LLP model.

Results: The LLP risk model had good discrimination in both the Harvard (area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve [AUC], 0.76 [95% CI, 0.75 to 0.78]) and the LLPC (AUC, 0.82 [CI, 0.80 to 0.85]) studies and modest discrimination in the EUELC (AUC, 0.67 [CI, 0.64 to 0.69]) study. The decision utility analysis, which incorporates the harms and benefit of using a risk model to make clinical decisions, indicates that the LLP risk model performed better than smoking duration or family history alone in stratifying high-risk patients for lung cancer CT screening.

Limitations: The model cannot assess whether including other risk factors, such as lung function or genetic markers, would improve accuracy. Lack of information on asbestos exposure in the LLPC limited the ability to validate the complete LLP risk model.

Conclusion: Validation of the LLP risk model in 3 independent external data sets demonstrated good discrimination and evidence of predicted benefits for stratifying patients for lung cancer CT screening. Further studies are needed to prospectively evaluate model performance and evaluate the optimal population risk thresholds for initiating lung cancer screening.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Potential Conflicts of Interest: Disclosures can be viewed at www.acponline.org/authors/icmje/ConflictOfInterestForms.do?msNum=M11-1994.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1. Distribution of predicted absolute risk for participants in the EUELC, Harvard, and LLPC studies
EUELC = European Early Lung Cancer; LLPC = Liverpool Lung Project prospective cohort.
Figure 2
Figure 2. Decision curves and relative utility curve of the LLP risk model compared with alternative strategies for lung cancer screening decisions
The smoking duration for relative utility curves involves 4 categories, whereas it had to be restricted to 2 categories for decision curves for technical reasons. DCA = decision curve analysis; EUELC = European Early Lung Cancer; LLP = Liverpool Lung Project; LLPC = Liverpool Lung Project prospective cohort; RU = relative utility.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Comment in

References

    1. Parkin DM, Bray F, Ferlay J, Pisani P. Global cancer statistics, 2002. CA Cancer J Clin. 2005;55:74–108. [PMID: 15761078] - PubMed
    1. Schiller JH, Harrington D, Belani CP, Langer C, Sandler A, Krook J, et al. Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group. Comparison of four chemotherapy regimens for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. N Engl J Med. 2002;346:92–98. [PMID: 11784875] - PubMed
    1. Aberle DR, Adams AM, Berg CD, Black WC, Clapp JD, Fagerstrom RM, et al. National Lung Screening Trial Research Team. Reduced lung-cancer mortality with low-dose computed tomographic screening. N Engl J Med. 2011;365:395–409. [PMID: 21714641] - PMC - PubMed
    1. van Klaveren RJ, Habbema JDF, Pedersen JH, de Koning HJ, Oudkerk M, Hoogsteden HC. Lung cancer screening by low-dose spiral computed tomography. Eur Respir J. 2001;18:857–866. [PMID: 11757637] - PubMed
    1. Field JK, Duffy SW. Lung cancer screening: the way forward. Br J Cancer. 2008;99:557–562. [PMID: 18665179] - PMC - PubMed

Publication types