ArticleThe British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners2011
Identifying patients with suspected lung cancer in primary care: derivation and validation of an algorithm.
Article in The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 59 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
59 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Prediction models for early detection and diagnosis of lung cancer in people who have never smoked: a systematic review and critical appraisal.Cancer causes & control : CCC · 2026Pooled it
- Predictive performance of risk prediction models for lung cancer incidence in Western and Asian countries: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Scientific reports · 2025Pooled it
- Cancer diagnostic tools to aid decision-making in primary care: mixed-methods systematic reviews and cost-effectiveness analysis.Health technology assessment (Winchester, England) · 2020Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Lung cancer in symptomatic patients presenting in primary care: a systematic review of risk prediction tools.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2017Pooled it
- Opportunities and challenges in developing risk prediction models with electronic health records data: a systematic review.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2017Pooled it
- The association between symptoms and bladder or renal tract cancer in primary care: a systematic review.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2015Pooled it
- The use of blood test trends in cancer detection: a scoping review.Diagnostic and prognostic research · 2026Review
- Diagnostic pathways for lung cancer patients in Denmark: General practice events, first referral and stage at diagnosis.Acta oncologica (Stockholm, Sweden) · 2026Article
- Changes in diagnostic evaluation of patients with lung cancer symptoms.NPJ primary care respiratory medicine · 2025Article
- Article
- Mapping intellectual structure and research hotspots of cancer studies in primary health care: A machine-learning-based analysis.Medicine · 2025Article
- Are we ready? assessing effectiveness and implementation of cancer control strategies in primary care: a comprehensive review of systematic reviews.Family practice · 2025Review
- Trends in primary care blood tests prior to lung and colorectal cancer diagnosis-A retrospective cohort study using linked Australian data.Cancer medicine · 2024Article
- Personal history of cancer as a risk factor for second primary lung cancer: Implications for lung cancer screening.Cancer medicine · 2024Article
- The Role of Smoking Status in Making Risk-Informed Diagnostic Decisions in the Lung Cancer Pathway: A Qualitative Study of Health Care Professionals and Patients.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2024Article
- Identifying Existing Evidence to Potentially Develop a Machine Learning Diagnostic Algorithm for Cough in Primary Care Settings: Scoping Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2023Article
- Lung cancer risk score for ever and never smokers in China.Cancer communications (London, England) · 2023Article
- Underlying cancer risk among patients with fatigue and other vague symptoms: a population-based cohort study in primary care.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2023Article
- Developing and Validating a Lung Cancer Risk Prediction Model: A Nationwide Population-Based Study.Cancers · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Erratum issuedCorrection.2015
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLung cancer has one of the lowest survival outcomes of any cancer because more then two-thirds of patients are diagnosed when curative treatment is not possible. The challenge is to help earlier diagnosis of lung cancer and hence improve prognosis.
aimTo derive and validate an algorithm incorporating information on symptoms, to estimate the absolute risk of having lung cancer DESIGN AND
settingCohort study of 375 UK QResearch® general practices for development, and 189 for validation.
methodSelected patients were aged 30-84 years and free of lung cancer at baseline and haemoptysis, loss of appetite, or weight loss in previous 12 months. Primary outcome was incident diagnosis of lung cancer recorded in the next 2 years. Risk factors examined were: haemoptysis, appetite loss, weight loss, cough, dyspnoea, tiredness, hoarseness, smoking, body mass index, deprivation score, family history of lung cancer, other cancers, asthma, chronic obstructive airways disease, pneumonia, asbestos exposure, and anaemia. Cox proportional hazards models with age as the underlying time variable were used to develop separate risk equations in males and females. Measures of calibration and discrimination assessed performance in the validation cohort.
resultsThere were 3785 incident cases of lung cancer arising from 4 289 282 person-years in the derivation cohort. Independent predictors were haemoptysis, appetite loss, weight loss, cough, body mass index, deprivation score, smoking status, chronic obstructive airways disease, anaemia, and prior cancer (females only). On validation, the algorithms explained 72% of the variation. The receiver operating characteristic (ROC) statistics were 0.92 for both females and males. The D statistic was 3.25 for females and 3.29 for males. The 10% of patients with the highest predicted risks included 77% of all lung cancers diagnosed over the subsequent 2 years.
conclusionThe algorithm has good discrimination and calibration and could potentially be used to identify those at highest risk of lung cancer, to facilitate early referral and investigation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.