Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorO'Dowd, Emma L.
dc.contributor.authorBaldwin, David R.
dc.date.accessioned2024-01-18T16:04:05Z
dc.date.available2024-01-18T16:04:05Z
dc.date.issued2022
dc.identifier.citationO'Dowd, E.L., ten Haaf, K., Kaur, J., Duffy, S.W., Hamilton, W., Hubbard, R.B., Field, J.K., Callister, M.E.J., Janes, S.M., de Koning, H.J., Rawlinson, J. and Baldwin, D.R. (2022) 'Selection of eligible participants for screening for lung cancer using primary care data', Thorax, 77(9), pp. 882-890. doi: 10.1136/thoraxjnl-2021-217142 https://doi.org/10.1136/thoraxjnl-2021-217142.en_US
dc.identifier.issn0040-6376
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12904/18122
dc.description.abstractLung cancer screening is effective if offered to people at increased risk of the disease. Currently, direct contact with potential participants is required for evaluating risk. A way to reduce the number of ineligible people contacted might be to apply risk-prediction models directly to digital primary care data, but model performance in this setting is unknown. Method: The Clinical Practice Research Datalink, a computerised, longitudinal primary care database, was used to evaluate the Liverpool Lung Project V.2 (LLPv2) and Prostate Lung Colorectal and Ovarian (modified 2012) (PLCOm2012) models. Lung cancer occurrence over 5-6 years was measured in ever-smokers aged 50-80 years and compared with 5-year (LLPv2) and 6-year (PLCOm2012) predicted risk. Results: Over 5 and 6 years, 7123 and 7876 lung cancers occurred, respectively, from a cohort of 842 109 ever-smokers. After recalibration, LLPV2 produced a c-statistic of 0.700 (0.694-0.710), but mean predicted risk was over-estimated (predicted: 4.61%, actual: 0.9%). PLCOm2012 showed similar performance (c-statistic: 0.679 (0.673-0.685), predicted risk: 3.76%. Applying risk-thresholds of 1% (LLPv2) and 0.15% (PLCOm2012), would avoid contacting 42.7% and 27.4% of ever-smokers who did not develop lung cancer for screening eligibility assessment, at the cost of missing 15.6% and 11.4% of lung cancers. Conclusion: Risk-prediction models showed only moderate discrimination when applied to routinely collected primary care data, which may be explained by quality and completeness of data. However, they may substantially reduce the number of people for initial evaluation of screening eligibility, at the cost of missing some lung cancers. Further work is needed to establish whether newer models have improved performance in primary care data. (C) 2022 BMJ Publishing Group Ltd & British Thoracic Society.
dc.description.urihttps://doi.org/10.1136/thoraxjnl-2021-217142en_US
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.subjectLung canceren_US
dc.subjectLung cancer screeningen_US
dc.subjectPrimary careen_US
dc.subjectSmokingen_US
dc.titleSelection of eligible participants for screening for lung cancer using primary care dataen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
rioxxterms.funderDefault funderen_US
rioxxterms.identifier.projectDefault projecten_US
rioxxterms.versionVoRen_US
rioxxterms.versionofrecord10.1136/thoraxjnl-2021-217142en_US
rioxxterms.typeJournal Article/Reviewen_US
refterms.dateFCD2024-01-18T16:04:07Z
refterms.versionFCDVoR
refterms.panelUnspecifieden_US
html.description.abstractLung cancer screening is effective if offered to people at increased risk of the disease. Currently, direct contact with potential participants is required for evaluating risk. A way to reduce the number of ineligible people contacted might be to apply risk-prediction models directly to digital primary care data, but model performance in this setting is unknown. Method: The Clinical Practice Research Datalink, a computerised, longitudinal primary care database, was used to evaluate the Liverpool Lung Project V.2 (LLPv2) and Prostate Lung Colorectal and Ovarian (modified 2012) (PLCOm2012) models. Lung cancer occurrence over 5-6 years was measured in ever-smokers aged 50-80 years and compared with 5-year (LLPv2) and 6-year (PLCOm2012) predicted risk. Results: Over 5 and 6 years, 7123 and 7876 lung cancers occurred, respectively, from a cohort of 842 109 ever-smokers. After recalibration, LLPV2 produced a c-statistic of 0.700 (0.694-0.710), but mean predicted risk was over-estimated (predicted: 4.61%, actual: 0.9%). PLCOm2012 showed similar performance (c-statistic: 0.679 (0.673-0.685), predicted risk: 3.76%. Applying risk-thresholds of 1% (LLPv2) and 0.15% (PLCOm2012), would avoid contacting 42.7% and 27.4% of ever-smokers who did not develop lung cancer for screening eligibility assessment, at the cost of missing 15.6% and 11.4% of lung cancers. Conclusion: Risk-prediction models showed only moderate discrimination when applied to routinely collected primary care data, which may be explained by quality and completeness of data. However, they may substantially reduce the number of people for initial evaluation of screening eligibility, at the cost of missing some lung cancers. Further work is needed to establish whether newer models have improved performance in primary care data. (C) 2022 BMJ Publishing Group Ltd & British Thoracic Society.en_US
rioxxterms.funder.project94a427429a5bcfef7dd04c33360d80cden_US


This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record