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
. 2024 Dec 10;3(1):e000560.
doi: 10.1136/bmjonc-2024-000560. eCollection 2024.

Six-year performance of risk-based selection for lung cancer screening in the Manchester Lung Health Check cohort

Affiliations

Six-year performance of risk-based selection for lung cancer screening in the Manchester Lung Health Check cohort

Patrick Goodley et al. BMJ Oncol. .

Abstract

Objective: Risk prediction models are used to determine eligibility for targeted lung cancer screening. However, prospective data regarding model performance in this setting are limited. Here we report the performance of the PLCOm2012 risk model, which calculates 6 year lung cancer risk, in a cohort invited for lung cancer screening in a socioeconomically deprived area.

Methods and analysis: Calibration (expected/observed (E/O) lung cancer diagnoses over 6 years) and discrimination (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve) of PLCOm2012 and other models was performed in Manchester Lung Health Check (M-LHC) participants, where PLCOm2012 ≥1.51% was used prospectively to determine screening eligibility. Lung cancers diagnosed by any route were captured within 6 years of risk assessment, for both screened and non-screened participants. Performance of a range of models was evaluated.

Results: Out of 2541 attendees, 56% were high-risk (n=1430/2541) and offered screening; 44% were low-risk (n=1111/2541) and not screened. Over 6 years, 7.3% (n=105/1430) and 0.9% (n=10/1111) were diagnosed with lung cancer in the high and low-risk cohorts, respectively (p<0.0001). Risk was underestimated in both high-risk, screened (E/O 0.68 (0.57-0.82)) and low-risk, unscreened groups (E/O 0.61 (0.33-1.14)). Most other models also underestimated risk.

Conclusion: Risk-based eligibility using PLCOm2012 successfully classified most eventual lung cancer cases in the high-risk, screened group. Prediction models generally underestimated risk in this socioeconomically deprived cohort, irrespective of screening status. The effect of screening on increasing the probability of lung cancer diagnosis should be considered when interpreting measures of prediction model performance.

Keywords: Cancer screening; Epidemiology; Lung cancer (non-small cell).

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

RB has received honoraria for educational events by Siemens Healthineers and Cobalt Medical Imaging.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1. Cumulative incidence of lung cancer arising in Manchester Lung Health Check participants, stratified by risk group as determined by PLCOm2012 risk ≥1.51%.

References

    1. National Lung Screening Trial Research T, Aberle DR, Adams AM. Reduced Lung-Cancer Mortality with Low-Dose Computed Tomographic Screening. N Engl J Med. 2011;365:395–409. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1102873. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. de Koning HJ, van der Aalst CM, de Jong PA, et al. Reduced Lung-Cancer Mortality with Volume CT Screening in a Randomized Trial. N Engl J Med. 2020;382:503–13. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1911793. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Ten Haaf K, Bastani M, Cao P, et al. A Comparative Modeling Analysis of Risk-Based Lung Cancer Screening Strategies. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2020;112:466–79. doi: 10.1093/jnci/djz164. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Katki HA, Kovalchik SA, Petito LC, et al. Implications of Nine Risk Prediction Models for Selecting Ever-Smokers for Computed Tomography Lung Cancer Screening. Ann Intern Med. 2018;169:10–9. doi: 10.7326/M17-2701. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Krist AH, Davidson KW, Mangione CM, et al. Screening for Lung Cancer: US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement. JAMA. 2021;325:962–70. doi: 10.1001/jama.2021.1117. - DOI - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources