Display Settings:

Format

Send to:

Choose Destination
See comment in PubMed Commons below
Br J Cancer. 2010 Jul 27;103(3):423-9. doi: 10.1038/sj.bjc.6605759. Epub 2010 Jun 29.

Comparison of discriminatory power and accuracy of three lung cancer risk models.

Author information

  • 1Department of Epidemiology, UT MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1155 Pressler Street - Unit 1340, Houston, Texas 77030-4009, USA.

Abstract

BACKGROUND:

Three lung cancer (LC) models have recently been constructed to predict an individual's absolute risk of LC within a defined period. Given their potential application in prevention strategies, a comparison of their accuracy in an independent population is important.

METHODS:

We used data for 3197 patients with LC and 1703 cancer-free controls recruited to an ongoing case-control study at the Harvard School of Public Health and Massachusetts General Hospital. We estimated the 5-year LC risk for each risk model and compared the discriminatory power, accuracy, and clinical utility of these models.

RESULTS:

Overall, the Liverpool Lung Project (LLP) and Spitz models had comparable discriminatory power (0.69), whereas the Bach model had significantly lower power (0.66; P=0.02). Positive predictive values were highest with the Spitz models, whereas negative predictive values were highest with the LLP model. The Spitz and Bach models had lower sensitivity but better specificity than did the LLP model.

CONCLUSION:

We observed modest differences in discriminatory power among the three LC risk models, but discriminatory powers were moderate at best, highlighting the difficulty in developing effective risk models.

PMID:
20588271
[PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
PMCID:
PMC2920015
Free PMC Article
PubMed Commons home

PubMed Commons

0 comments
How to join PubMed Commons

    Supplemental Content

    Full text links

    Icon for Nature Publishing Group Icon for PubMed Central
    Loading ...
    Write to the Help Desk