IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v19y2022i8p4633-d791941.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Risk Assessment of Early Lung Cancer with LDCT and Health Examinations

Author

Listed:
  • Hou-Tai Chang

    (Department of Critical Care Medicine, Far Eastern Memorial Hospital, New Taipei 22000, Taiwan
    Department of Industrial Engineering and Management, Yuan Ze University, Taoyuan 32003, Taiwan)

  • Ping-Huai Wang

    (Division of Thoracic Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, Far Eastern Memorial Hospital, New Taipei 22000, Taiwan)

  • Wei-Fang Chen

    (Department of Industrial Engineering and Management, Yuan Ze University, Taoyuan 32003, Taiwan)

  • Chen-Ju Lin

    (Department of Industrial Engineering and Management, Yuan Ze University, Taoyuan 32003, Taiwan)

Abstract

Early detection of lung cancer has a higher likelihood of curative treatment and thus improves survival rate. Low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) screening has been shown to be effective for high-risk individuals in several clinical trials, but has high false positive rates. To evaluate the risk of stage I lung cancer in the general population not limited to smokers, a retrospective study of 133 subjects was conducted in a medical center in Taiwan. Regularized regression was used to build the risk prediction model by using LDCT and health examinations. The proposed model selected seven variables related to nodule morphology, counts and location, and ten variables related to blood tests and medical history, achieving an area under the curve (AUC) value of 0.93. The higher the age, white blood cell count (WBC), blood urea nitrogen (BUN), diabetes, gout, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), other cancers, and the presence of spiculation, ground-glass opacity (GGO), and part solid nodules, the higher the risk of lung cancer. Subjects with calcification, solid nodules, nodules in the middle lobes, more nodules, and diseases related to thyroid, liver, and digestive systems were at a lower risk. The selected variables did not indicate causation.

Suggested Citation

  • Hou-Tai Chang & Ping-Huai Wang & Wei-Fang Chen & Chen-Ju Lin, 2022. "Risk Assessment of Early Lung Cancer with LDCT and Health Examinations," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(8), pages 1-12, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:19:y:2022:i:8:p:4633-:d:791941
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/8/4633/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/8/4633/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Natalia Saltybaeva & Katharina Martini & Thomas Frauenfelder & Hatem Alkadhi, 2016. "Organ Dose and Attributable Cancer Risk in Lung Cancer Screening with Low-Dose Computed Tomography," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(5), pages 1-11, May.
    2. Hui Zou & Trevor Hastie, 2005. "Addendum: Regularization and variable selection via the elastic net," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 67(5), pages 768-768, November.
    3. Hui Zou & Trevor Hastie, 2005. "Regularization and variable selection via the elastic net," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 67(2), pages 301-320, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Chien-Lung Chan & Chi-Chang Chang, 2022. "Big Data, Decision Models, and Public Health," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(14), pages 1-9, July.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Tutz, Gerhard & Pößnecker, Wolfgang & Uhlmann, Lorenz, 2015. "Variable selection in general multinomial logit models," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 82(C), pages 207-222.
    2. Oxana Babecka Kucharcukova & Jan Bruha, 2016. "Nowcasting the Czech Trade Balance," Working Papers 2016/11, Czech National Bank.
    3. Carstensen, Kai & Heinrich, Markus & Reif, Magnus & Wolters, Maik H., 2020. "Predicting ordinary and severe recessions with a three-state Markov-switching dynamic factor model," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 36(3), pages 829-850.
    4. Margherita Giuzio, 2017. "Genetic algorithm versus classical methods in sparse index tracking," Decisions in Economics and Finance, Springer;Associazione per la Matematica, vol. 40(1), pages 243-256, November.
    5. Nicolaj N. Mühlbach, 2020. "Tree-based Synthetic Control Methods: Consequences of moving the US Embassy," CREATES Research Papers 2020-04, Department of Economics and Business Economics, Aarhus University.
    6. Wang, Qiao & Zhou, Wei & Cheng, Yonggang & Ma, Gang & Chang, Xiaolin & Miao, Yu & Chen, E, 2018. "Regularized moving least-square method and regularized improved interpolating moving least-square method with nonsingular moment matrices," Applied Mathematics and Computation, Elsevier, vol. 325(C), pages 120-145.
    7. Dmitriy Drusvyatskiy & Adrian S. Lewis, 2018. "Error Bounds, Quadratic Growth, and Linear Convergence of Proximal Methods," Mathematics of Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 43(3), pages 919-948, August.
    8. Mkhadri, Abdallah & Ouhourane, Mohamed, 2013. "An extended variable inclusion and shrinkage algorithm for correlated variables," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 57(1), pages 631-644.
    9. Lucian Belascu & Alexandra Horobet & Georgiana Vrinceanu & Consuela Popescu, 2021. "Performance Dissimilarities in European Union Manufacturing: The Effect of Ownership and Technological Intensity," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(18), pages 1-19, September.
    10. Candelon, B. & Hurlin, C. & Tokpavi, S., 2012. "Sampling error and double shrinkage estimation of minimum variance portfolios," Journal of Empirical Finance, Elsevier, vol. 19(4), pages 511-527.
    11. Susan Athey & Guido W. Imbens & Stefan Wager, 2018. "Approximate residual balancing: debiased inference of average treatment effects in high dimensions," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 80(4), pages 597-623, September.
    12. Andrea Carriero & Todd E. Clark & Massimiliano Marcellino, 2022. "Specification Choices in Quantile Regression for Empirical Macroeconomics," Working Papers 22-25, Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland.
    13. Kim, Hyun Hak & Swanson, Norman R., 2018. "Mining big data using parsimonious factor, machine learning, variable selection and shrinkage methods," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 34(2), pages 339-354.
    14. Shuichi Kawano, 2014. "Selection of tuning parameters in bridge regression models via Bayesian information criterion," Statistical Papers, Springer, vol. 55(4), pages 1207-1223, November.
    15. Yize Zhao & Matthias Chung & Brent A. Johnson & Carlos S. Moreno & Qi Long, 2016. "Hierarchical Feature Selection Incorporating Known and Novel Biological Information: Identifying Genomic Features Related to Prostate Cancer Recurrence," Journal of the American Statistical Association, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 111(516), pages 1427-1439, October.
    16. Enrico Bergamini & Georg Zachmann, 2020. "Exploring EU’s Regional Potential in Low-Carbon Technologies," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(1), pages 1-28, December.
    17. Qianyun Li & Runmin Shi & Faming Liang, 2019. "Drug sensitivity prediction with high-dimensional mixture regression," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(2), pages 1-18, February.
    18. Jung, Yoon Mo & Whang, Joyce Jiyoung & Yun, Sangwoon, 2020. "Sparse probabilistic K-means," Applied Mathematics and Computation, Elsevier, vol. 382(C).
    19. Changrong Yan & Dixin Zhang, 2013. "Sparse dimension reduction for survival data," Computational Statistics, Springer, vol. 28(4), pages 1835-1852, August.
    20. Christopher J Greenwood & George J Youssef & Primrose Letcher & Jacqui A Macdonald & Lauryn J Hagg & Ann Sanson & Jenn Mcintosh & Delyse M Hutchinson & John W Toumbourou & Matthew Fuller-Tyszkiewicz &, 2020. "A comparison of penalised regression methods for informing the selection of predictive markers," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(11), pages 1-14, November.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:19:y:2022:i:8:p:4633-:d:791941. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.