Related Experiment Video
Updated: Dec 8, 2025

An R-Based Landscape Validation of a Competing Risk Model
Published on: September 16, 2022
Effects of Random Measurement Error on Lung Cancer Screening Decisions: A Retrospective Cohort-Based Microsimulation
Tanner J Caverly1, Xuefei Zhang2, Rodney A Hayward1
1VA Ann Arbor Center for Clinical Management Research and University of Michigan Medical School, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI; Institute for Health Policy Innovation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI.
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.
More Related Videos
11:31Using Micro-computed Tomography for the Assessment of Tumor Development and Follow-up of Response to Treatment in a Mouse Model of Lung Cancer
Published on: May 20, 2016
06:55Inverse Probability of Treatment Weighting Propensity Score using the Military Health System Data Repository and National Death Index
Published on: January 8, 2020
Related Concept Videos
Statistical Methods for Analyzing Epidemiological Data
Bias in Epidemiological Studies
Types of Biopharmaceutical Studies: Controlled and Non-Controlled Approaches
Non-controlled studies, commonly employed for initial exploration, lack a control group, rendering them susceptible to biases and external influences. In contrast,...
Censoring Survival Data
Confounding in Epidemiological Studies
Regression Toward the Mean