Prediction of lung cancer incidence on the low-dose computed tomography arm of the National Lung Screening Trial: A dynamic Bayesian network.
Identifying high-risk lung cancer individuals at an early disease stage is the most effective way of improving survival. The landmark National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) demonstrated the utility of low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) imaging to reduce mortality (relative to X-ray screening). As a result of the NLST and other studies, imaging-based lung cancer screening programs are now being implemented. However, LDCT interpretation results in a high number of false positives. A set of dynamic Bayesian networks (DBN) were designed and evaluated to provide insight into how longitudinal data can be used to help inform lung cancer screening decisions.



The LDCT arm of the NLST dataset was used to build and explore five DBNs for high-risk individuals. Three of these DBNs were built using a backward construction process, and two using structure learning methods. All models employ demographics, smoking status, cancer history, family lung cancer history, exposure risk factors, comorbidities related to lung cancer, and LDCT screening outcome information. Given the uncertainty arising from lung cancer screening, a cancer state-space model based on lung cancer staging was utilized to characterize the cancer status of an individual over time. The models were evaluated on balanced training and test sets of cancer and non-cancer cases to deal with data imbalance and overfitting.



Results were comparable to expert decisions. The average area under the curve (AUC) of the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) for the three intervention points of the NLST trial was higher than 0.75 for all models. Evaluation of the models on the complete LDCT arm of the NLST dataset (N=25,486) demonstrated satisfactory generalization. Consensus of predictions over similar cases is reported in concordance statistics between the models' and the physicians' predictions. The models' predictive ability with respect to missing data was also evaluated with the sample of cases that missed the second screening exam of the trial (N=417). The DBNs outperformed comparison models such as logistic regression and naïve Bayes.



The lung cancer screening DBNs demonstrated high discrimination and predictive power with the majority of cancer and non-cancer cases.
Department of Bioengineering, University of California, Los Angeles, CA, USA; Medical Imaging Informatics (MII) Group, Department of Radiological Sciences, University of California, Los Angeles, CA, USA. Electronic address: pp89@ucla.edu.
Panayiotis
P
Petousis
Department of Bioengineering, University of California, Los Angeles, CA, USA; Medical Imaging Informatics (MII) Group, Department of Radiological Sciences, University of California, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Simon X
SX
Han
Department of Bioengineering, University of California, Los Angeles, CA, USA; Medical Imaging Informatics (MII) Group, Department of Radiological Sciences, University of California, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Denise
D
Aberle
Department of Bioengineering, University of California, Los Angeles, CA, USA; Medical Imaging Informatics (MII) Group, Department of Radiological Sciences, University of California, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Alex A T
AA
Bui
D001499:Bayes Theorem; D002986:Clinical Trials as Topic; D055088:Early Detection of Cancer; D006801:Humans; D015994:Incidence; D008175:Lung Neoplasms / Q000175:diagnosis* / Q000453:epidemiology; D008403:Mass Screening; D008962:Models, Theoretical; D009367:Neoplasm Staging; D012372:ROC Curve; D012907:Smoking; D014057:Tomography, X-Ray Computed
Annual NLST cancer risk; Cancer incidence; Dynamic Bayesian networks; Expert-driven networks; Individualized lung cancer screening; Lung stage cancer state-space; Structure learning
N Engl J Med. 2011 Aug 4;365(5):395-409
21714641
J Biomed Inform. 2008 Aug;41(4):515-29
18337188
J Natl Cancer Inst. 2007 May 2;99(9):715-26
17470739
J Natl Cancer Inst. 2006 May 3;98(9):637-40
16670389
Ann Surg Oncol. 2013 Jan;20(1):161-74
22899001
Bioinformatics. 2006 Jul 15;22(14):e184-90
16873470
J Biomed Inform. 2007 Dec;40(6):619-30
17709302
JAMA. 2012 Jun 13;307(22):2418-29
22610500
Cancer Prev Res (Phila). 2008 Sep;1(4):250-4
19138968
J Natl Cancer Inst. 2011 Jul 6;103(13):1058-68
21606442
J Natl Cancer Inst. 2003 Mar 19;95(6):470-8
12644540
Ann Intern Med. 2012 Aug 21;157(4):242-50
22910935
CA Cancer J Clin. 2015 Jan-Feb;65(1):5-29
25559415
N Engl J Med. 2013 Sep 5;369(10):910-9
24004118
J Biomed Inform. 2008 Apr;41(2):242-50
18262472
Lung Cancer. 2008 May;60(2):151-9
18359124
Nature. 2014 Sep 11;513(7517):S4-6
25208071
Comput Biol Med. 2007 Nov;37(11):1553-64
17434159
Comput Biol Med. 2015 Feb;57:139-49
25557199
Am J Surg. 1955 Feb;89(2):447-56
13228799
Med Biol Eng Comput. 2013 Feb;51(1-2):29-37
23065654
Phys Med Biol. 2011 Mar 21;56(6):1635-51
21335651
JAMA Intern Med. 2014 Feb 1;174(2):269-74
24322569
IEEE J Biomed Health Inform. 2016 May;20(3):944-952
25861090
Semin Respir Crit Care Med. 2011 Feb;32(1):3-9
21500119
Cancer Prev Res (Phila). 2011 Nov;4(11):1778-89
21813406
J Natl Cancer Inst. 2005 May 18;97(10):715-23
15900041
AMIA Annu Symp Proc. 2008 Nov 06;:788-92
18999030
J Am Soc Cytopathol. 2016 Jan - Feb;5(1):9-14
31042540
CA Cancer J Clin. 2013 Jan;63(1):11-30
23335087
Am Rev Respir Dis. 1980 Nov;122(5):725-9
6255842
J Natl Cancer Inst. 1999 Nov 3;91(21):1829-46
10547390