Evidence Hub

Predicting the future risk of lung cancer: development and validation of QCancer2 (10-year risk) lung model and evaluating the model performance of nine prediction models

W. Liao, C. Coupland, J. Burchardt, D. Baldwin, Collaborators in the DART initiative, F. Gleeson, J. Hippisley-Cox

medRxiv, 2022

99 participants · 2 citations

Abstract

Objectives: To develop and validate the QCancer2 (10-year risk) lung model for estimation of future risk of lung cancer and to compare the model performance against other prediction models for lung cancer screening Design: open cohort study using linked electronic health records (EHRs) from the QResearch database (1 January 2005 - 31 March 2020) Setting: English primary care Participants: 12.99 million patients aged 25-84 years were in the derivation cohort to develop the models and 4.14 million patients were in the validation cohort. All patients were free of lung cancer at baseline. Main outcome measure: Incident lung cancer cases Methods: There were two stages in this study. First, Cox proportional hazards models were used in the derivation cohort to update the QCancer (10-year risk) lung model in men and women for a 10-year predictive horizon, including two new predictors (pneumonia and venous thromboembolism) and more recent data. Discrimination measures (Harrell's C, D statistic, and R_D^2) and calibration plots were used to evaluate model performance in the validation cohort by sex. Secondly, seven prediction models for lung cancer screening (LLPv2, LLPv3, LCRAT, PLCOM2012, PLCOM2014, Pittsburgh, and Bach) were selected to compare the model performance with the QCancer2 (10-year risk) lung model in two subgroups: (1) smokers and non-smokers aged 40-84 years and (2) ever-smokers aged 55-74 years. Results: 73,380 incident lung cancer cases were identified in the…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cohort study, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 99 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free