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
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 11 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
International Journal of Cancer
based on 18 papers
Top 0.1%
12.5%
2
JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute
based on 13 papers
Top 0.1%
7.5%
3
eLife
based on 262 papers
Top 4%
4.7%
4
PLOS ONE
based on 1737 papers
Top 71%
4.7%
5
JAMA Network Open
based on 125 papers
Top 4%
4.5%
6
npj Digital Medicine
based on 85 papers
Top 5%
4.5%
7
British Journal of Cancer
based on 22 papers
Top 1%
3.0%
8
Scientific Reports
based on 701 papers
Top 52%
2.9%
9
Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
based on 29 papers
Top 0.7%
2.8%
10
eBioMedicine
based on 82 papers
Top 0.9%
2.5%
11
BMC Medicine
based on 155 papers
Top 8%
2.4%
50% of probability mass above
12
International Journal of Epidemiology
based on 65 papers
Top 4%
2.3%
13
Nature Communications
based on 483 papers
Top 27%
2.3%
14
BMJ Open
based on 553 papers
Top 39%
1.8%
15
American Journal of Epidemiology
based on 54 papers
Top 4%
1.6%
16
The Lancet Digital Health
based on 25 papers
Top 2%
1.6%
17
Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention
based on 14 papers
Top 2%
1.6%
18
Diagnostics
based on 36 papers
Top 4%
1.3%
19
Cancers
based on 57 papers
Top 6%
1.3%
20
BMC Medical Research Methodology
based on 41 papers
Top 3%
1.3%
21
Thorax
based on 29 papers
Top 2%
1.2%
22
Clinical Infectious Diseases
based on 219 papers
Top 20%
0.8%
23
European Respiratory Journal
based on 44 papers
Top 6%
0.8%
24
Clinical Cancer Research
based on 22 papers
Top 4%
0.8%
25
Computers in Biology and Medicine
based on 39 papers
Top 6%
0.8%
26
ERJ Open Research
based on 36 papers
Top 4%
0.7%
27
Frontiers in Medicine
based on 99 papers
Top 22%
0.7%
28
Cureus
based on 64 papers
Top 19%
0.7%
29
Breast Cancer Research
based on 11 papers
Top 2%
0.7%