Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Case-control study demonstrates accurate lung cancer risk prediction in Asian never-smoking females, highlighting potential criteria for targeted screening.
BACKGROUND: High disease burden suggests the desirability to identify high-risk Asian never-smoking females (NSF) who may benefit from low-dose CT (LDCT) screening. In North America, one is eligible for LDCT screening if one satisfies the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) criteria or has model-estimated 6-year risk greater than 0.0151. According to two U.S. reports, only 36.6% female patients with lung cancer met the USPSTF criteria, while 38% of the ever-smokers ages 55 to 74 years met the USPSTF criteria. METHODS: Using data on NSFs in the Taiwan Genetic Epidemiology Study of Lung Adenocarcinoma and the Taiwan Biobank before August 2016, we formed an age-matched case-control study consisting of 1,748 patients with lung cancer and 6,535 controls. Using these and an estimated age-specific lung cancer 6-year incidence rate among Taiwanese NSFs, we developed the Taiwanese NSF Lung Cancer Risk Models using genetic information and simplified questionnaire (TNSF-SQ). Performance evaluation was based on the newer independent datasets: Taiwan Lung Cancer Pharmacogenomics Study (LCPG) and Taiwan Biobank data after August 2016 (TWB2). RESULTS: The AUC based on the NSFs ages 55 to 70 years in LCPG and TWB2 was 0.714 [95% confidence intervals (CI), 0.660-0.768]. For women in TWB2 ages 55 to 70 years, 3.94% (95% CI, 2.95-5.13) had risk higher than 0.0151. For women in LCPG ages 55 to 74 years, 27.03% (95% CI, 19.04-36.28) had risk higher than 0.0151. CONCLUSIONS: TNSF-SQ demonstrated good discriminative power. The ability to identify 27.03% of high-risk Asian NSFs ages 55 to 74 years deserves attention. IMPACT: TNSF-SQ seems potentially useful in selecting Asian NSFs for LDCT screening.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Chien et al. (2019) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: