Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37877788›Full record

ArticleCancer2024

Risk model-based management for second primary lung cancer among lung cancer survivors through a validated risk prediction model.

Eunji Choi, Sophia J Luo, Victoria Y Ding, Julie T Wu, Ashok V Kumar, Jason Wampfler, Martin C Tammemägi, Lynne R Wilkens, Jacqueline V Aredo, Leah M Backhus and 10 more

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cancer, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
2.3field-weighted citation impact, top 11% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Patient-perceived barriers and facilitators for risk-stratified follow-up care in lung cancer: a qualitative study.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2025
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

20 authors at 11 institutions in 2 countries.

Eunji ChoiStanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-1315-1433
Sophia J LuoStanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California, USA.
Victoria Y DingStanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California, USA.
Julie T WuStanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California, USA.
Ashok V KumarDepartment of Quantitative Health Science, Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, Arizona, USA.
Jason WampflerDepartment of Quantitative Health Science, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA.
Martin C TammemägiDepartment of Health Sciences, Brock University, St. Catharines, Ontario, Canada.
Lynne R WilkensCancer Epidemiology Program, University of Hawaii Cancer Center, Honolulu, Hawaii, USA.
Jacqueline V AredoStanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California, USA.
Leah M BackhusDepartment of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California, USA.
Joel W NealStanford Cancer Institute, Stanford, California, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-3119-9334
Ann N LeungDepartment of Radiology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California, USA.
Neal D FreedmanNational Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland, USA.
Rayjean J HungLunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research Institute, Sinai Health, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Christopher I AmosBaylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas, USA.
Loïc Le MarchandCancer Epidemiology Program, University of Hawaii Cancer Center, Honolulu, Hawaii, USA.
Iona ChengDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of California, San Francisco, California, USA.
Heather A WakeleeStanford Cancer Institute, Stanford, California, USA.
Ping YangDepartment of Quantitative Health Science, Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, Arizona, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-8588-847X
Summer S HanStanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-2013-6883
Stanford University · USCancer Prevention Institute of California · USMayo Clinic in Arizona · USUniversity of Hawaiʻi at Mānoa · USBaylor College of Medicine · USBrock University · CALunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research Institute · CAMayo Clinic in Florida · USNational Institutes of Health · USUniversity of California, San Francisco · USVA Palo Alto Health Care System · US

Funding

Translational Oncology Research Program (Project-005)P30CA124435 · NCI · STANFORD UNIVERSITY · PI Melinda L. Telli · 2007 to 2026
$71.4M
University of Hawaii Cancer Center CCSGP30CA071789 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF HAWAII AT MANOA · PI Xin Chen · 1996 to 2026
$56.2M
Evaluation of genetic, clinical, and environmental risk factors to establish effective screening strategies for second primary lung cancerR37CA226081 · NCI · STANFORD UNIVERSITY · PI HAN, SUMMER S · 2018 to 2024
$4.3M
Integrating Multiple Electronic Health Records Systems to Improve Lung Cancer OutcomesR01CA282793 · NCI · STANFORD UNIVERSITY · PI Summer S Han · 2023 to 2026
$2.6M
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA071789NCI NIH HHS P30 CA124435NCI NIH HHS R01 CA282793NCI NIH HHS R37 CA226081NIH HHS 1R01CA282793NIH HHS 4R37CA226081
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRecent therapeutic advances and screening technologies have improved survival among patients with lung cancer, who are now at high risk of developing second primary lung cancer (SPLC). Recently, an SPLC risk-prediction model (called SPLC-RAT) was developed and validated using data from population-based epidemiological cohorts and clinical trials, but real-world validation has been lacking. The predictive performance of SPLC-RAT was evaluated in a hospital-based cohort of lung cancer survivors.

methodsThe authors analyzed data from 8448 ever-smoking patients diagnosed with initial primary lung cancer (IPLC) in 1997-2006 at Mayo Clinic, with each patient followed for SPLC through 2018. The predictive performance of SPLC-RAT and further explored the potential of improving SPLC detection through risk model-based surveillance using SPLC-RAT versus existing clinical surveillance guidelines.

resultsOf 8448 IPLC patients, 483 (5.7%) developed SPLC over 26,470 person-years. The application of SPLC-RAT showed high discrimination area under the receiver operating characteristics curve: 0.81). When the cohort was stratified by a 10-year risk threshold of ≥5.6% (i.e., 80th percentile from the SPLC-RAT development cohort), the observed SPLC incidence was significantly elevated in the high-risk versus low-risk subgroup (13.1% vs. 1.1%, p < 1 × 10

conclusionIn a large, hospital-based cohort, the authors validated the predictive performance of SPLC-RAT in identifying high-risk survivors of SPLC and showed its potential to improve SPLC detection through risk-based surveillance. PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY: Lung cancer survivors have a high risk of developing second primary lung cancer (SPLC). However, no evidence-based guidelines for SPLC surveillance are available for lung cancer survivors. Recently, an SPLC risk-prediction model was developed and validated using data from population-based epidemiological cohorts and clinical trials, but real-world validation has been lacking. Using a large, real-world cohort of lung cancer survivors, we showed the high predictive accuracy and risk-stratification ability of the SPLC risk-prediction model. Furthermore, we demonstrated the potential to enhance efficiency in detecting SPLC using risk model-based surveillance strategies compared to the existing consensus-based clinical guidelines, including the National Comprehensive Cancer Network.

Indexed as

Cancer SurvivorsLung NeoplasmsNeoplasms, Second PrimaryHumansLungRiskSmokingactive surveillanceearly detection of cancerlung cancerrisk assessmentsecond primary neoplasms

Identifiers

PMID37877788
PMCPMC10922086
OpenAlexW4387930873

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.