Improving Lung Cancer Screening Selection: A Comparative Analysis of Risk Models and Traditional Criteria in a Western European General Population

<b>Background/Objectives</b>: The objective of this study is to evaluate the performance of the traditional age/smoking criteria and existing risk prediction models in selecting high-risk populations for lung cancer screening from a Western European general population. <b>Methods</b>: Baseline data from the Dutch population-based Lifelines cohort, collected between 2006 and 2013, were linked to the Dutch cancer registry to confirm lung cancer diagnoses. Five-year lung cancer risk was estimated based on traditional age/smoking criteria (NLST, NELSON, SPSTF-2021) and risk prediction models (LLPv2, PLCOm2012, Hoggart, Bach and Shanghai-LCM). For every strategy, the number of individuals eligible was determined, and total lung cancer cases in the eligible groups versus the ineligible groups were calculated. <b>Results</b>: Among 139,120 participants (aged ≥18 years), 218 (0.2%) developed lung cancer within five years. Age/smoking criteria identified 2161-6295 (1.6-4.5%) participants as eligible, comprising 62-92 (28.4-42.2%) lung cancer cases. Risk prediction models identified 2372-4315 (1.7-3.1%) participants as eligible, comprising 40-85 (18.4-38.9%) lung cancer cases. Among lung cancers in ineligible groups, 46.2-59.6% occurred in individuals who formerly smoked, and 28.7-39.3% occurred in individuals who currently smoke. Additionally, 41.2-70.0% of lung cancer cases in ineligible groups were in individuals younger than 50, and 44.3-72.3% in individuals who had quit smoking > 15 years prior to diagnosis. <b>Conclusions</b>: In a Western European population, current lung cancer screening selection criteria resulted in identifying only 18-42% of lung cancer cases. Cases in ineligible groups predominantly concern individuals who currently smoke and are below the threshold age and individuals who quit smoking > 15 years ago, highlighting the opportunity for more personalized risk-based screening strategies to increase lung cancer detection.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Cancers
Published
2026-02-24
DOI
https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers18050724
Primary Topic
Lung Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Improving Lung Cancer Screening Selection: A Comparative Analysis of Risk Models and Traditional Criteria in a Western European General Population

Ralph Stadhouders, Colin Jacobs, Marcel J. W. Greuter, Harriet L Lancaster et al.
Cancers
Lung Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment
article

Improving Lung Cancer Screening Selection: A Comparative Analysis of Risk Models and Traditional Criteria in a Western European General Population

Ralph Stadhouders, Colin Jacobs, Marcel J. W. Greuter, Harriet L Lancaster, Pim de Jong, Harry J.M. Groen, Grigory Sidorenkov, Danrong Zhong, Geertruida H. de Bock, Firdaus A. A. Mohamed Hoesein, Marjolein A. Heuvelmans, Rozemarijn Vliegenthart, Noa Antonissen, Hester A. Gietema
article en

Abstract

<b>Background/Objectives</b>: The objective of this study is to evaluate the performance of the traditional age/smoking criteria and existing risk prediction models in selecting high-risk populations for lung cancer screening from a Western European general population. <b>Methods</b>: Baseline data from the Dutch population-based Lifelines cohort, collected between 2006 and 2013, were linked to the Dutch cancer registry to confirm lung cancer diagnoses. Five-year lung cancer risk was estimated based on traditional age/smoking criteria (NLST, NELSON, SPSTF-2021) and risk prediction models (LLPv2, PLCOm2012, Hoggart, Bach and Shanghai-LCM). For every strategy, the number of individuals eligible was determined, and total lung cancer cases in the eligible groups versus the ineligible groups were calculated. <b>Results</b>: Among 139,120 participants (aged ≥18 years), 218 (0.2%) developed lung cancer within five years. Age/smoking criteria identified 2161-6295 (1.6-4.5%) participants as eligible, comprising 62-92 (28.4-42.2%) lung cancer cases. Risk prediction models identified 2372-4315 (1.7-3.1%) participants as eligible, comprising 40-85 (18.4-38.9%) lung cancer cases. Among lung cancers in ineligible groups, 46.2-59.6% occurred in individuals who formerly smoked, and 28.7-39.3% occurred in individuals who currently smoke. Additionally, 41.2-70.0% of lung cancer cases in ineligible groups were in individuals younger than 50, and 44.3-72.3% in individuals who had quit smoking > 15 years prior to diagnosis. <b>Conclusions</b>: In a Western European population, current lung cancer screening selection criteria resulted in identifying only 18-42% of lung cancer cases. Cases in ineligible groups predominantly concern individuals who currently smoke and are below the threshold age and individuals who quit smoking > 15 years ago, highlighting the opportunity for more personalized risk-based screening strategies to increase lung cancer detection.

CancersVol. 18(5)
University Medical Center Groningen (NL), Radboud University Nijmegen (NL), University of Groningen (NL), Maastricht University Medical Centre (NL), Erasmus MC (NL), Radboud University Medical Center (NL), University Medical Center Utrecht (NL), Maastricht University (NL), Amsterdam University Medical Centers (NL), University of Amsterdam (NL), Amsterdam UMC Location Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam (NL), Erasmus University Rotterdam (NL)
Good health and well-being
Openalex Percentile: Top 44%
Lung Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.