4.4 Article

LLPi: Liverpool Lung Project Risk Prediction Model for Lung Cancer Incidence

Journal

CANCER PREVENTION RESEARCH
Volume 8, Issue 6, Pages 570-575

Publisher

AMER ASSOC CANCER RESEARCH
DOI: 10.1158/1940-6207.CAPR-14-0438

Keywords

-

Categories

Funding

  1. Roy Castle Lung Cancer Foundation, UK
  2. European Community's Seventh Framework Programme (FP7) [HEALTH-F2-2010-258677, 258868]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Identification of high-risk individuals will facilitate early diagnosis, reduce overall costs, and also improve the current poor survival from lung cancer. The Liverpool Lung Project prospective cohort of 8,760 participants ages 45 to 79 years, recruited between 1998 and 2008, was followed annually through the hospital episode statistics until January 31, 2013. Cox proportional hazards models were used to identify risk predictors of lung cancer incidence. C-statistic was used to assess the discriminatory accuracy of the models. Models were internally validated using the bootstrap method. During mean follow-up of 8.7 years, 237 participants developed lung cancer. Age [hazard ratio (HR), 1.04; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.02-1.06], male gender (HR, 1.48; 95% CI, 1.10-1.98), smoking duration (HR, 1.04; 95% CI, 1.03-1.05), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (HR, 2.43; 95% CI, 1.79-3.30), prior diagnosis of malignant tumor (HR, 2.84; 95% CI, 2.08-3.89), and early onset of family history of lung cancer (HR, 1.68; 95% CI, 1.04-2.72) were associated with the incidence of lung cancer. The LLPi risk model had a good calibration (goodness-of-fit chi(2) 7.58, P = 0.371). The apparent C-statistic was 0.852 (95% CI, 0.831-0.873) and the optimism-corrected bootstrap resampling C-statistic was 0.849 (95% CI, 0.829-0.873). The LLPi risk model may assist in identifying individuals at high risk of developing lung cancer in population-based screening programs. (C) 2015 AACR.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available