Background We sought to develop a proteomics-based risk model for lung cancer and evaluate its risk-discriminatory performance in comparison with a smoking-based risk model (PLCOm2012) and a commercially available autoantibody biomarker test. Methods We designed a case-control study nested in 6 prospective cohorts, including 624 lung cancer participants who donated blood samples at most 3 years prior to lung cancer diagnosis and 624 smoking-matched cancer free participants who were assayed for 302 proteins. We used 470 case-control pairs from 4 cohorts to select proteins and train a protein-based risk model. We subsequently used 154 case-control pairs from 2 cohorts to compare the risk-discriminatory performance of the protein-based model with that of the Early Cancer Detection Test (EarlyCDT)-Lung and the PLCOm2012 model using receiver operating characteristics analysis and by estimating models' sensitivity. All tests were 2-sided. Results The area under the curve for the protein-based risk model in the validation sample was 0.75 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.70 to 0.81) compared with 0.64 (95% CI = 0.57 to 0.70) for the PLCOm2012 model (P-difference = .001). The EarlyCDT-Lung had a sensitivity of 14% (95% CI = 8.2% to 19%) and a specificity of 86% (95% CI = 81% to 92%) for incident lung cancer. At the same specificity of 86%, the sensitivity for the protein-based risk model was estimated at 49% (95% CI = 41% to 57%) and 30% (95% CI = 23% to 37%) for the PLCOm2012 model. Conclusion Circulating proteins showed promise in predicting incident lung cancer and outperformed a standard risk prediction model and the commercialized EarlyCDT-Lung.
Lung cancer risk discrimination of prediagnostic proteomics measurements compared with existing prediction tools / Feng, X., Wu, W.Y., Onwuka, J.U., Haider, Z., Alcala, K., Smith-Byrne, K., Zahed, H., Guida, F., Wang, R., Bassett, J.K., Stevens, V., Wang, Y., Weinstein, S., Freedman, N.D., Chen, C., Tinker, L., Nøst, T.H., Koh, W., Muller, D., Colorado-Yohar, S.M., et al.. - In: JOURNAL OF THE NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE. - ISSN 0027-8874. - STAMPA. - 115:(2023), pp. 1050-1059. [10.1093/jnci/djad071]
Lung cancer risk discrimination of prediagnostic proteomics measurements compared with existing prediction tools
Severi, Gianluca;
2023
Abstract
Background We sought to develop a proteomics-based risk model for lung cancer and evaluate its risk-discriminatory performance in comparison with a smoking-based risk model (PLCOm2012) and a commercially available autoantibody biomarker test. Methods We designed a case-control study nested in 6 prospective cohorts, including 624 lung cancer participants who donated blood samples at most 3 years prior to lung cancer diagnosis and 624 smoking-matched cancer free participants who were assayed for 302 proteins. We used 470 case-control pairs from 4 cohorts to select proteins and train a protein-based risk model. We subsequently used 154 case-control pairs from 2 cohorts to compare the risk-discriminatory performance of the protein-based model with that of the Early Cancer Detection Test (EarlyCDT)-Lung and the PLCOm2012 model using receiver operating characteristics analysis and by estimating models' sensitivity. All tests were 2-sided. Results The area under the curve for the protein-based risk model in the validation sample was 0.75 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.70 to 0.81) compared with 0.64 (95% CI = 0.57 to 0.70) for the PLCOm2012 model (P-difference = .001). The EarlyCDT-Lung had a sensitivity of 14% (95% CI = 8.2% to 19%) and a specificity of 86% (95% CI = 81% to 92%) for incident lung cancer. At the same specificity of 86%, the sensitivity for the protein-based risk model was estimated at 49% (95% CI = 41% to 57%) and 30% (95% CI = 23% to 37%) for the PLCOm2012 model. Conclusion Circulating proteins showed promise in predicting incident lung cancer and outperformed a standard risk prediction model and the commercialized EarlyCDT-Lung.I documenti in FLORE sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.



