Performances of Lung Cancer Risk Prediction Models for Multi-Ancestries: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Longyao Zhang,Xiang Wang,Qiuyuan Chen,Mengsheng Zhao,Can Ju,Ruyang Zhang,David C. Christiani,Feng Chen,Yongyue Wei
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4449747
2023-01-01
Abstract:Background: In the past years, a wide array of multivariable lung cancer risk prediction models have been successfully developed and validated among multiple ancestries. The model performance in terms of calibration and discrimination, may vary according to modeling methodology, risk factors included, or population applied to. Thus, it is crucial to provide a comprehensive summary and comparison of the performances of lung cancer risk prediction models developed.Methods: We performed a literature search in Embase, PubMed and Web of Science databases to identify any study develop and/or validating models predicting lung cancer risk. Studies were appraised critically according to the PROBAST checklist, and we performed random-effects meta-analyses in models with multiple external validation to pool the discriminative power (C-index) and calibration accuracy (O:E ratio).Findings: Out of 9,121 initial articles screened, 32 studies reporting on 18 prediction models were identified, which utilized 39 types of predictors belonging 7 categories. Stratified by population, PLCOall2014 and LCRAT models, in North American population, achieved best performance in discrimination and calibration with pooled C-index of 0·803 (95%CI: 0·750, 0·848) and O:E ratio of 1·011 (95%CI: 0·893, 1·145), respectively. OWL model yielded excellent performance in European population with pooled C-index of 0·826 (95%CI: 0·783, 0·862) and O:E ratio of 0·959 (95%CI: 0·929, 0·990). As for different smoking status, CanPredict and OWL models achieved best performance in general population with pooled C-index of 0·874 (95%CI: 0·805, 0·921) and O:E ratio of 1·090 (95%CI: 0·980, 1·213), respectively. In ever smokers, PLCO2011 and OWL models ranked the top with C-index of 0·783 (95%CI: 0·779, 0·787) and O:E ratio of 1·009 (95%CI: 0·901, 1·130), respectively.Interpretation: The PLCO family, LLPv3, and LCRAT models have demonstrated excellent performance in their intended populations and have undergone rigorous external validations. Additionally, the recently proposed CanPredict model, derived from the largest-scale cohort, and OWL model, based on a machine learning algorithm, have also achieved remarkable results. However, to ensure generalizability, further trans-ancestry validation is imperative. Urgent attention must be given to strengthening model development and validation in African and Asian populations.Funding: This study was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (81973142 to Y.W.).Declaration of Interest: All authors declare no competing interests.
What problem does this paper attempt to address?