Risk prediction for lung cancer screening: a systematic review and meta-regression

Résumé fourni par la source

BACKGROUND: Lung cancer (LC) remains the deadliest cancer, often diagnosed at advanced stages. Screening reduces mortality in high-risk individuals. Eligibility criteria in European and US screening guidelines have recently expanded. Therefore, we conducted an updated systematic review of risk-based models for identifying candidates for low-dose computed tomography screening and post-screening nodule classification. METHODS: We systematically searched Embase and Medline (January 2020-January 2026), identifying studies proposing new risk models in the context of LC screening. We separated models by pre- and post-screening risk stratification. Data extraction included study design, population, model type, risk horizon and model performance metrics. We performed an exploratory meta-regression of areas under the curve (AUCs) to assess whether sample size, model type, validation type and inclusion of biomarkers were associated with performance. RESULTS: Of 2462 records, 91 were included. 56 models were for screening selection (30 included biomarkers) and 35 for post-screening nodule classification. Regression-based models predominated, though machine-learning approaches were increasingly common. Discrimination ranged from moderate (AUC∼0.70) to excellent (>0.90), with biomarker and imaging-enhanced models often outperforming models without. Calibration was inconsistently reported and fewer than half underwent external validation. CONCLUSION: We identified 91 risk prediction models for LC, developed after 2020. Although many demonstrated promising discrimination across both screening selection and post-screening management, most remain insufficiently mature for clinical adoption, as their performance and practical value outside the original study setting are uncertain. Future work should prioritise external validation, updating and comparative evaluation of existing models, and prospective implementation studies rather than continued development of additional models.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.