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.
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 9 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Volumetric lung cancer screening reduces unnecessary low-dose computed tomography scans: results from a single-centre prospective trial on 4,119 subjects 94%
- Deep learning models for poorly differentiated colorectal adenocarcinoma classification in whole slide images using transfer learning 90%
- A Machine Learning Ensemble Based on Radiomics to Predict BI-RADS Category and Reduce the Biopsy Rate of Ultrasound-Detected Suspicious Breast Masses 89%
Similar papers in this journal
- Classification performance bias between training and test sets in a limited mammography dataset 93%
- Accuracy of deep learning based computed tomography diagnostic system of COVID-19: a consecutive sampling external validation cohort study 92%
- Automated Clear Cell Renal Carcinoma Grade Classification with Prognostic Significance 92%
Similar papers in this journal
- Radiomics analysis to predict pulmonary nodule malignancy using machine learning approaches 95%
- Post-viral parenchymal lung disease following COVID-19 and viral pneumonitis hospitalisation: A systematic review and meta-analysis 91%
- The protective effect of club cell secretory protein (CC-16) on COPD risk and progression: a Mendelian randomisation study 90%
Similar papers in this journal
- Large-scale validation of the Prediction model Risk Of Bias ASsessment Tool (PROBAST) using a short form: high risk of bias models show poorer discrimination 92%
- Income inequality and access to advanced immunotherapy for lung cancer: the case of Durvalumab in the Netherlands 91%
- Quantitative bias analysis methods for summary level epidemiologic data in the peer-reviewed literature: a systematic review 91%
Similar papers in this journal
- Performance of Existing and Novel Symptom- and Antigen Testing-Based COVID-19 Case Definitions in a Community Setting 90%
- Obtaining prevalence estimates of COVID-19: A model to inform decision-making 90%
- Predicting the need for escalation of care or death from repeated daily clinical observations and laboratory results in patients with SARS-CoV-2 during 2020: a retrospective population-based cohort study from the United Kingdom 89%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.