European Radiology

, Volume 25, Issue 10, pp 3093–3099 | Cite as

Predictive Accuracy of the PanCan Lung Cancer Risk Prediction Model -External Validation based on CT from the Danish Lung Cancer Screening Trial

  • Mathilde M. Winkler Wille
  • Sarah J. van Riel
  • Zaigham Saghir
  • Asger Dirksen
  • Jesper Holst Pedersen
  • Colin Jacobs
  • Laura Hohwü Thomsen
  • Ernst Th. Scholten
  • Lene T. Skovgaard
  • Bram van Ginneken



Lung cancer risk models should be externally validated to test generalizability and clinical usefulness. The Danish Lung Cancer Screening Trial (DLCST) is a population-based prospective cohort study, used to assess the discriminative performances of the PanCan models.


From the DLCST database, 1,152 nodules from 718 participants were included. Parsimonious and full PanCan risk prediction models were applied to DLCST data, and also coefficients of the model were recalculated using DLCST data. Receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curves and area under the curve (AUC) were used to evaluate risk discrimination.


AUCs of 0.826–0.870 were found for DLCST data based on PanCan risk prediction models. In the DLCST, age and family history were significant predictors (p = 0.001 and p = 0.013). Female sex was not confirmed to be associated with higher risk of lung cancer; in fact opposing effects of sex were observed in the two cohorts. Thus, female sex appeared to lower the risk (p = 0.047 and p = 0.040) in the DLCST.


High risk discrimination was validated in the DLCST cohort, mainly determined by nodule size. Age and family history of lung cancer were significant predictors and could be included in the parsimonious model. Sex appears to be a less useful predictor.

Key points

• High accuracy in logistic modelling for lung cancer risk stratification of nodules.

• Lung cancer risk prediction is primarily based on size of pulmonary nodules.

• Nodule spiculation, age and family history of lung cancer are significant predictors.

• Sex does not appear to be a useful risk predictor.


Lung cancer screening Diagnostic imaging Computed tomography Risk Solitary pulmonary nodules 



Area under the curve


British Columbia Cancer Agency


Computed tomography


Danish Lung Cancer Screening Trial


National Lung Screening Trial


Odds ratio


Pan-Canadian Early Detection of Lung Cancer Study


Receiver operating characteristics


Standard deviation



The scientific guarantor of this publication is Asger Dirksen. The authors of this manuscript declare no relationships with any companies whose products or services may be related to the subject matter of the article. Bram Van Ginneken works for Fraunhofer MEVIS in Bremen, Germany. This study has received funding by The Danish Ministry of Health and AstraZeneca. One of the authors has significant statistical expertise. Institutional review board approval was obtained. Written informed consent was obtained from all subjects (patients) in this study. Some study subjects have been previously reported in DLCST studies regarding lung cancer screening, lung function, lung density, airway segmentation, and visual assessment of emphysema, airway abnormalities and interstitial abnormalities in the Danish Lung Cancer Screening Trial. However, analyses of this study are new and have not been published before. All relevant references are disclosed. Methodology: prospective, diagnostic study, performed at two institutions.


  1. 1.
    Parkin DM, Bray F, Ferlay J, Pisani P (2005) Global cancer statistics, 2002. CA Cancer J Clin 2:74–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Aberle DR, Adams AM, Berg CD et al (2011) Reduced lung-cancer mortality with low-dose computed tomographic screening. N Engl J Med 5:395–409Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bach PB, Mirkin JN, Oliver TK et al (2012) Benefits and harms of CT screening for lung cancer: a systematic review. JAMA 22:2418–2429CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bach PB, Kattan MW, Thornquist MD et al (2003) Variations in lung cancer risk among smokers. J Natl Cancer Inst 6:470–478CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Spitz MR, Hong WK, Amos CI et al (2007) A risk model for prediction of lung cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 9:715–726CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Spitz MR, Etzel CJ, Dong Q et al (2008) An expanded risk prediction model for lung cancer. Cancer Prev Res (Phila) 4:250–254CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cassidy A, Myles JP, Liloglou T, Duffy SW, Field JK (2006) Defining high-risk individuals in a population-based molecular-epidemiological study of lung cancer. Int J Oncol 5:1295–1301Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Tammemagi CM, Pinsky PF, Caporaso NE et al (2011) Lung cancer risk prediction: prostate, lung, colorectal and ovarian cancer screening trial models and validation. J Natl Cancer Inst 13:1058–1068CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Swensen SJ, Silverstein MD, Ilstrup DM, Schleck CD, Edell ES (1997) The probability of malignancy in solitary pulmonary nodules. Application to small radiologically indeterminate nodules. Arch Intern Med 8:849–855CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gould MK, Ananth L, Barnett PG (2007) A clinical model to estimate the pretest probability of lung cancer in patients with solitary pulmonary nodules. Chest 2:383–388CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Li Y, Wang J (2012) A mathematical model for predicting malignancy of solitary pulmonary nodules. World J Surg 4:830–835CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    McWilliams A, Tammemagi MC, Mayo JR et al (2013) Probability of cancer in pulmonary nodules detected on first screening CT. N Engl J Med 10:910–919CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Wille MM, Thomsen LH, Dirksen A et al (2014) Emphysema progression is visually detectable in low-dose CT in continuous but not in former smokers. Eur Radiol 24:2692–2699CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Pedersen JH, Ashraf H, Dirksen A et al (2009) The Danish randomized lung cancer CT screening trial–overall design and results of the prevalence round. J Thorac Oncol 5:608–614CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Tas F, Ciftci R, Kilic L, Karabulut S (2013) Age is a prognostic factor affecting survival in lung cancer patients. Oncol Lett 5:1507–1513Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Cote ML, Liu M, Bonassi S et al (2012) Increased risk of lung cancer in individuals with a family history of the disease: a pooled analysis from the International Lung Cancer Consortium. Eur J Cancer 13:1957–1968CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Pauk N, Kubik A, Zatloukal P, Krepela E (2005) Lung cancer in women. Lung Cancer 1:1–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Belani CP, Marts S, Schiller J, Socinski MA (2007) Women and lung cancer: epidemiology, tumor biology, and emerging trends in clinical research. Lung Cancer 1:15–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Mizuno S, Takiguchi Y, Fujikawa A et al (2009) Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and interstitial lung disease in patients with lung cancer. Respirology 3:377–383CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Wilson DO, Weissfeld JL, Balkan A et al (2008) Association of radiographic emphysema and airflow obstruction with lung cancer. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 7:738–744CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© European Society of Radiology 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mathilde M. Winkler Wille
    • 1
  • Sarah J. van Riel
    • 2
  • Zaigham Saghir
    • 3
  • Asger Dirksen
    • 1
  • Jesper Holst Pedersen
    • 4
  • Colin Jacobs
    • 2
  • Laura Hohwü Thomsen
    • 5
  • Ernst Th. Scholten
    • 2
  • Lene T. Skovgaard
    • 6
  • Bram van Ginneken
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Respiratory MedicineGentofte HospitalHellerupDenmark
  2. 2.Department of Radiology and Nuclear MedicineRadboud University Medical CenterNijmegenThe Netherlands
  3. 3.Department of Respiratory MedicineHerlev HospitalHerlevDenmark
  4. 4.Department of Thoracic Surgery, RigshospitaletCopenhagen University HospitalKøbenhavn ØDenmark
  5. 5.Department of Respiratory MedicineHvidovre HospitalHvidovreDenmark
  6. 6.Department of BiostatisticsUniversity of CopenhagenKøbenhavn ØDenmark

Personalised recommendations