ArticleJournal of thoracic oncology : official publication of the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer2024
Lung Cancer Risk Prediction Models for Asian Ever-Smokers.
Article in Journal of thoracic oncology : official publication of the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 3 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
18 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 18 citations in OpenAlex.
- 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
- Cost-effectiveness of lung cancer screening: insights from risk stratification, guidelines, and emerging technologies-a systematic review.NPJ primary care respiratory medicine · 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
- Pulmonary nodules: classification, biomarkers, signaling pathways, diseases, early diagnosis and management.Signal transduction and targeted therapy · 2026Review
- Screening Eligibility and Survival Among Patients With Lung Cancer in Korea.JAMA network open · 2026Article
- Lung cancer risk prediction models and asbestos exposure: a validation study on the Western Australia Asbestos Review Program.Occupational and environmental medicine · 2026Article
- Research on Risk Transfer Pathways for Lung Cancer Among Middle-Aged and Older Individuals Using Deep Reinforcement Learning: Retrospective Cohort Study.JMIR medical informatics · 2026Article
- From evidence to action: the IARC's role in strengthening cancer prevention and early detection.Journal of the National Cancer Institute. Monographs · 2026Review
- Article
- Lung cancer in never-smoking females: epidemiology, risk factors and screening.Frontiers in public health · 2026Review
- Article
- Current lung cancer screening: a call for comprehensive reassessment.Journal of thoracic disease · 2025Article
- Updates in Lung Cancer Screening: A Decade of Evidence.Seminars in respiratory and critical care medicine · 2025Review
- Cost-effectiveness of risk model-based lung cancer screening in smokers and nonsmokers in China.BMC medicine · 2025Article
- Assessment and recalibration of seventeen lung cancer risk prediction models in approximately one million Chinese population utilising healthcare big data: a retrospective cohort analysis.The Lancet regional health. Western Pacific · 2025Article
- Head-to-head comparisons of risk discrimination by questionnaire-based lung cancer risk prediction models: a systematic review and meta-analysis.EClinicalMedicine · 2025Article
- Analysis of risk factors for early detection of cystic lung cancer based on CT genomics and its relationship with pathological invasion.Polish journal of radiology · 2025Article
- Exploratory evidence maps for the WHO Classification of Tumours 5th edition for lung and thymus tumors.Virchows Archiv : an international journal of pathology · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
51 authors at 20 institutions in 11 countries.
Funding
Abstract
introductionAlthough lung cancer prediction models are widely used to support risk-based screening, their performance outside Western populations remains uncertain. This study aims to evaluate the performance of 11 existing risk prediction models in multiple Asian populations and to refit prediction models for Asians.
methodsIn a pooled analysis of 186,458 Asian ever-smokers from 19 prospective cohorts, we assessed calibration (expected-to-observed ratio) and discrimination (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve [AUC]) for each model. In addition, we developed the "Shanghai models" to better refine risk models for Asians on the basis of two well-characterized population-based prospective cohorts and externally validated them in other Asian cohorts.
resultsAmong the 11 models, the Lung Cancer Death Risk Assessment Tool yielded the highest AUC (AUC [95% confidence interval (CI)] = 0.71 [0.67-0.74] for lung cancer death and 0.69 [0.67-0.72] for lung cancer incidence) and the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial Model had good calibration overall (expected-to-observed ratio [95% CI] = 1.06 [0.90-1.25]). Nevertheless, these models substantially underestimated lung cancer risk among Asians who reported less than 10 smoking pack-years or stopped smoking more than or equal to 20 years ago. The Shanghai models were found to have marginal improvement overall in discrimination (AUC [95% CI] = 0.72 [0.69-0.74] for lung cancer death and 0.70 [0.67-0.72] for lung cancer incidence) but consistently outperformed the selected Western models among low-intensity smokers and long-term quitters.
conclusionsThe Shanghai models had comparable performance overall to the best existing models, but they improved much in predicting the lung cancer risk of low-intensity smokers and long-term quitters in Asia.
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.