Back

Risk prediction for lung cancer screening: a systematic review and meta-regression

Rezaeianzadeh, R.; Leung, C.; Kim, S. J.; Choy, K.; Johnson, K. M.; Kirby, M.; Lam, S.; Smith, B. M.; Sadatsafavi, M.

2025-09-12 epidemiology
10.1101/2025.09.10.25335529 medRxiv
Show abstract

BackgroundLung cancer (LC) is the leading cause of cancer mortality, often diagnosed at advanced stages. Screening reduces mortality in high-risk individuals, but its efficiency can improve with pre- and post-screening risk stratification. With recent LC screening guideline updates in Europe and the US, numerous novel risk prediction models have emerged since the last systematic review of such models. We reviewed risk-based models for selecting candidates for CT screening, and post-CT stratification. MethodsWe systematically reviewed Embase and MEDLINE (2020-2024), identifying studies proposing new LC risk models for screening selection or nodule classification. Data extraction included study design, population, model type, risk horizon, and internal/external validation metrics. In addition, we performed an exploratory meta-regression of AUCs to assess whether sample size, model class, validation type, and biomarker use were associated with discrimination. ResultsOf 1987 records, 68 were included: 41 models were for screening selection (20 without biomarkers, 21 with), and 27 for nodule classification. Regression-based models predominated, though machine learning and deep learning approaches were increasingly common. Discrimination ranged from moderate (AUC{approx}0.70) to excellent (>0.90), with biomarker and imaging-enhanced models often outperforming traditional ones. Model calibration was inconsistently reported, and fewer than half underwent external validation. Meta-regression suggested that, among pre-screening models, larger sample sizes were modestly associated with higher AUC. Conclusion75 models had been identified prior to 2020, we found 68 models since. This reflects growing interest in personalized LC screening. While many demonstrate strong discrimination, inconsistent calibration and limited external validation hinder clinical adoption. Future efforts should prioritize improving existing models rather than developing new ones, transparent evaluation, cost-effectiveness analysis, and real-world implementation.

Matching journals

The top 8 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute
16 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
17.5%
2
British Journal of Cancer
42 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
8.2%
3
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 31%
4.9%
4
Diagnostics
48 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
4.9%
5
Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
28 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
4.3%
6
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 31%
4.0%
7
Annals of Translational Medicine
17 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
3.6%
8
Thorax
32 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
3.1%
50% of probability mass above
9
JNCI Cancer Spectrum
10 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
2.7%
10
Nature Communications
4913 papers in training set
Top 46%
2.4%
11
International Journal of Cancer
42 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
2.1%
12
European Respiratory Journal
54 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
2.1%
13
Frontiers in Medicine
113 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.9%
14
JAMA Network Open
127 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.7%
15
International Journal of Epidemiology
74 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.7%
16
eBioMedicine
130 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.7%
17
American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine
39 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.5%
18
Annals of Oncology
13 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.5%
19
Cancer Medicine
24 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
1.5%
20
Cancers
200 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.3%
21
Medicine
30 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.3%
22
The Lancet Digital Health
25 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
1.3%
23
Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention
17 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.2%
24
Infectious Diseases
14 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
0.9%
25
Epidemiology and Infection
84 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.9%
26
BMC Infectious Diseases
118 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.8%
27
PLOS Computational Biology
1633 papers in training set
Top 25%
0.7%
28
BMC Medical Research Methodology
43 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.7%
29
Frontiers in Oncology
95 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.7%
30
Frontiers in Immunology
586 papers in training set
Top 9%
0.6%