Talk to the Veterans Crisis Line now
U.S. flag
An official website of the United States government

Health Services Research & Development

Go to the ORD website
Go to the QUERI website

HSR&D Citation Abstract

Search | Search by Center | Search by Source | Keywords in Title

Effects of Random Measurement Error on Lung Cancer Screening Decisions: A Retrospective Cohort-Based Microsimulation Study.

Caverly TJ, Zhang X, Hayward RA, Zhu J, Waljee AK. Effects of Random Measurement Error on Lung Cancer Screening Decisions: A Retrospective Cohort-Based Microsimulation Study. Chest. 2021 Feb 1; 159(2):853-861.

Dimensions for VA is a web-based tool available to VA staff that enables detailed searches of published research and research projects.

If you have VA-Intranet access, click here for more information vaww.hsrd.research.va.gov/dimensions/

VA staff not currently on the VA network can access Dimensions by registering for an account using their VA email address.
   Search Dimensions for VA for this citation
* Don't have VA-internal network access or a VA email address? Try searching the free-to-the-public version of Dimensions



Abstract:

BACKGROUND: Self-reported tobacco pack-year history plays a large role in decisions about low-dose CT screening for lung cancer, yet is challenging to measure accurately. RESEARCH QUESTION: To what extent does random measurement error in pack-year information impact screening decisions and screening effectiveness? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: Retrospective cohort study of 10,449 patients with pack-year history documented at least twice between October 2013 and July 2017 across 8 academic Veterans Affairs sites. Outcome measures included (1) observed reliability of pack-year information based on all repeat measures for the study population and (2) each person's statistically "true" pack-year information based on best linear unbiased predictor from a multilevel linear random effects model. To examine how unreliability leads to misclassification of screening eligibility and inaccuracy in estimating lung cancer risk, we simulated pack-year observations for each person, first comparing simulated pack-year and lung cancer risk values with true values, then comparing outcomes when basing screening decisions on unreliable pack-year information vs true information. RESULTS: Reliability of assessing pack-year information in routine practice varied across sites. Thus, we examined the clinical impact of two different levels of reliability, based on the range of intraclass correlation coefficients observed. Using a  30-pack-year threshold led to a high rate of eligibility misclassifications (48.1% misclassified with higher reliability pack-year information and 60.7% misclassified with lower reliability information). However, using a lung cancer risk threshold leads to fewer misclassifications (47.3%-49.7% misclassified when using lower reliability pack-year information) and maintains screening effectiveness better when using unreliable pack-year information. INTERPRETATION: Random error in real-world pack-year assessments leads to a substantial rate of misclassifying who should be offered CT screening if a  30-pack-year criterion is used. However, using a lung cancer risk threshold mitigates the impact of unreliable pack-year information. Decision-makers concerned about the impact of unreliable pack-year information should consider using risk-based approaches to CT screening.





Questions about the HSR&D website? Email the Web Team.

Any health information on this website is strictly for informational purposes and is not intended as medical advice. It should not be used to diagnose or treat any condition.