The LLP risk model: An individual risk prediction model for lung cancer

Roy Castle Lung Cancer Research Programme, University of Liverpool Cancer Research Centre, Liverpool, L3 9TA, UK.
British Journal of Cancer (Impact Factor: 4.84). 02/2008; 98(2):270-6. DOI: 10.1038/sj.bjc.6604158
Source: PubMed


Using a model-based approach, we estimated the probability that an individual, with a specified combination of risk factors, would develop lung cancer within a 5-year period.
Data from 579 lung cancer cases and 1157 age- and sex-matched population-based controls were available for this analysis. Significant risk factors were fitted into multivariate conditional logistic regression models. The final multivariate model was combined with age-standardised lung cancer incidence data to calculate absolute risk estimates.
Combinations of lifestyle risk factors were modelled to create risk profiles. For example, a 77-year-old male non-smoker, with a family history of lung cancer (early onset) and occupational exposure to asbestos has an absolute risk of 3.17% (95% CI, 1.67–5.95). Choosing a 2.5% cutoff to trigger increased surveillance, gave a sensitivity of 0.62 and specificity of 0.70, while a 6.0% cutoff gave a sensitivity of 0.34 and specificity of 0.90. A 10-fold cross validation produced an AUC statistic of 0.70, indicating good discrimination.
If independent validation studies confirm these results, the LLP risk models' application as the first stage in an early detection strategy is a logical evolution in patient care.

Download full-text


Available from: Martie van Tongeren
  • Source
    • "These adverse consequences could be reduced by restricting screening eligibility to only those at greatest risk. Among the approximately 8 million subjects eligible for screening according to current criteria, which include smoking history ≥30 pack-years and age 55–80 years[3,5], risk varies widely from less than 0.08 % per year to over 1 % per year678910111213. As such, a large majority of screened individuals will not develop lung cancer in their lifetime and the overall benefit of screening is reduced by the adverse events and large cost associated with screening subjects who will not benefit due to low risk. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background: The Lung Cancer Risk Test (LCRT) trial is a prospective cohort study comparing lung cancer incidence among persons with a positive or negative value for the LCRT, a 15 gene test measured in normal bronchial epithelial cells (NBEC). The purpose of this article is to describe the study design, primary endpoint, and safety; baseline characteristics of enrolled individuals; and establishment of a bio-specimen repository. Methods/Design: Eligible participants were aged 50-90 years, current or former smokers with 20 pack-years or more cigarette smoking history, free of lung cancer, and willing to undergo bronchoscopic brush biopsy for NBEC sample collection. NBEC, peripheral blood samples, baseline CT, and medical and demographic data were collected from each subject. Discussion: Over a two-year span (2010-2012), 403 subjects were enrolled at 12 sites. At baseline 384 subjects remained in study and mean age and smoking history were 62.9 years and 50.4 pack-years respectively, with 34 % current smokers. Obstructive lung disease (FEV1/FVC <0.7) was present in 157 (54 %). No severe adverse events were associated with bronchoscopic brushing. An NBEC and matched peripheral blood bio-specimen repository was established. Trial registration: The LCRT Study, NCT 01130285, was registered with on May 24, 2010.
    Full-text · Article · Dec 2016 · BMC Pulmonary Medicine
  • Source
    • "These models include the Bach model, Spize model, and Liverpool Lung Project (LLP) model44–47 as well as the improvement models based on LLP.48,49 The LLP risk model,45 developed from the LLP case–control study, provides a single unified model for smokers (current and former) and nonsmokers, whereas the Bach model was developed for predicting risk only in smokers and the Spitz model46 requires three separate models for predicting risk in current smokers, former smokers, or nonsmokers. In addition, the LLP model also accounts for important lung cancer risk factors in addition to age, sex, and smoking duration. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Cancer risk prediction models are important in identifying individuals at high risk of developing cancer, which could result in targeted screening and interventions to maximize the treatment benefit and minimize the burden of cancer. The cancer-associated genetic variants identified in genome-wide or candidate gene association studies have been shown to collectively enhance cancer risk prediction, improve our understanding of carcinogenesis, and possibly result in the development of targeted treatments for patients. In this article, we review the cancer risk prediction models that have been developed for popular cancers and assess their applicability, strengths, and weaknesses. We also discuss the factors to be considered for future development and improvement of models for cancer risk prediction.
    Preview · Article · Sep 2014 · Cancer informatics
  • Source
    • "But the UKLS trial used a different approach for participants. It recruited the population according to the Liverpool Lung Project risk model27. UKLS selected participants with a 5% risk of developing lung cancer in 5 years28. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The US National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) demonstrated a 20% reduction in lung cancer mortality and a 6.7% decrease in all-cause mortality. The NLST is the only trial showing positive results in a high-risk population, such as in patients with old age and heavy ever smokers. Lung cancer screening using a low-dose chest computed tomography might be beneficial for the high-risk group. However, there may also be potential adverse outcomes in terms of over diagnosis, bias and cost-effectiveness. Until now, lung cancer screening remains controversial. In this review, we wish to discuss the evolution of lung cancer screening and summarize existing evidences and recommendations.
    Full-text · Article · Aug 2014 · Tuberculosis and Respiratory Diseases
Show more

Similar Publications