4.7 Article

Personalized Risk Assessment in Never, Light, and Heavy Smokers in a prospective cohort in Taiwan

Journal

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
Volume 6, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/srep36482

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center Research Trust
  2. Center for Translational and Public Health Genomics
  3. Duncan Family Institute for Cancer Prevention and Risk Assessment
  4. University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center
  5. Taiwan Department of Health Clinical Trial and Research Center of Excellence [DOH101-TD-B-111-004]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The objective of this study was to develop markedly improved risk prediction models for lung cancer using a prospective cohort of 395,875 participants in Taiwan. Discriminatory accuracy was measured by generation of receiver operator curves and estimation of area under the curve (AUC). In multivariate Cox regression analysis, age, gender, smoking pack-years, family history of lung cancer, personal cancer history, BMI, lung function test, and serum biomarkers such as carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA), bilirubin, alpha fetoprotein (AFP), and c-reactive protein (CRP) were identified and included in an integrative risk prediction model. The AUC in overall population was 0.851 (95% CI = 0.840-0.862), with never smokers 0.806 (95% CI = 0.790-0.819), light smokers 0.847 (95% CI = 0.824-0.871), and heavy smokers 0.732 (95% CI = 0.708-0.752). By integrating risk factors such as family history of lung cancer, CEA and AFP for light smokers, and lung function test (Maximum Mid-Expiratory Flow, MMEF25-75%), AFP and CEA for never smokers, light and never smokers with cancer risks as high as those within heavy smokers could be identified. The risk model for heavy smokers can allow us to stratify heavy smokers into subgroups with distinct risks, which, if applied to low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) screening, may greatly reduce false positives.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available