ArticleAnnals of nuclear medicine2023
Development of lung cancer risk prediction models based on F-18 FDG PET images.
Article in Annals of nuclear medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Risk prediction for lung cancer screening: a systematic review and meta-regression.European respiratory review : an official journal of the European Respiratory Society · 2026Pooled it
- Ensemble machine learning models for lung cancer incidence risk prediction in the elderly: a retrospective longitudinal study.BMC cancer · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveWe aimed to evaluate whether the degree of F-18 fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) uptake in the lungs is associated with an increased risk of lung cancer and to develop lung cancer risk prediction models using metabolic parameters on F-18 FDG positron emission tomography (PET).
methodsWe retrospectively included 795 healthy individuals who underwent F-18 FDG PET/CT scans for a health check-up. Individuals who developed lung cancer within 5 years of the PET/CT scan were classified into the lung cancer group (n = 136); those who did not were classified into the control group (n = 659). The healthy individuals were then randomly assigned to either the training (n = 585) or validation sets (n = 210). Clinical factors including age, sex, body mass index (BMI), and smoking history were collected. The standardized uptake value ratio (SUVR) and metabolic heterogeneity (MH) index were obtained for the bilateral lungs. Logistic regression models including clinical factors, SUVR, and MH index were generated to quantify the probability of lung cancer development using a training set. The prediction models were validated using a validation set.
resultsThe lung SUVR and lung MH index in the lung cancer group were significantly higher than in the control group (p < 0.001 and p < 0.001, respectively). In the combined prediction model 1, age, sex, BMI, smoking history, and lung SUVR were significantly associated with lung cancer development (age: OR 1.07, p < 0.001; male: OR 2.08, p = 0.015; BMI: OR 0.93, p = 0.057; current or past smoker: OR 5.60, p < 0.001; lung SUVR: OR 1.13, p < 0.001). In the combined prediction model 2, age, sex, BMI, smoking history, and lung MH index showed a significant association with lung cancer development (age: OR 1.06, p < 0.001; male: OR 1.87, p = 0.045; BMI: OR 0.93, p = 0.010; current or past smoker: OR 4.78, p < 0.001; lung MH index: OR 1.33, p < 0.001). In the validation data, combined prediction models 1 and 2 exhibited very good discrimination [area under the receiver operator curve (AUC): 0.867 and 0.901, respectively].
conclusionsThe metabolic parameters on F-18 FDG PET are related to an increased risk of lung cancer. Metabolic parameters can be used as biomarkers to provide information independent of the clinical parameters, related to lung cancer risk.
Indexed as
Identifiers
37458983What 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.