Lung Cancer Risk in US Adults with COPD: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Peggy-ita Obeng-Nyarkoh,1 Maria E Valentin-Figueroa,1 Christopher J Cadham,2 Nathan K Cobb,3 MeiLan K Han,4 David T Levy,1 Rafael Meza,5 Luz M Sanchez-Romero1 1Department of Oncology, Georgetown University Medical Center, Washington D.C, DC, USA; 2Department of Health Management and Policy, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA; 3Division of Pulmonary, Critical Care, and Sleep Medicine, Department of Medicine, Georgetown University Medical Center, Washington D.C, DC, USA; 4Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Medical School, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA; 5Department of Integrative Oncology, BC Cancer Research Institute, Vancouver, BC, CanadaCorrespondence: Luz M Sanchez-Romero, Department of Oncology, Georgetown University Medical Center, 2115 Wisconsin Ave, Suite 300, Washington, DC, 20007, USA, Email ls1364@georgetown.eduBackground: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is an important risk factor for the development of, and death from, lung cancer.Methods: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis assessing the risk of lung cancer incidence and mortality among adults with a COPD diagnosis in the United States (US) and exploring differences by subgroups. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, and PubMed from inception to July 2024 for observational studies that investigated the association between COPD and lung cancer incidence and mortality risk. We conducted a meta-analysis for overall risk and COPD assessment methods, and a systematic review for analyses within sex, race/ethnicity, smoking status.Results: Twenty observational studies (n=638,610) were included in the systematic review and meta-analysis. US adults with COPD were found to have higher odds of developing (OR, 1.76; [1.53 to 1.99]) and higher hazards of dying (HR, 1.48; [1.06 to 1.89]) from lung cancer compared to those without COPD. Mixed results were observed when stratifying the impact of COPD on lung cancer risk by subgroups (ie, sex, race and ethnicity and smoking status). Generally, the same trend was observed where people in each subgroup with COPD were at higher risk of lung cancer incidence and mortality compared to those in the same subgroups without the disease. Individuals assessed by self-reported COPD and spirometry showed greater incidence risk but not mortality risk.Conclusion: US adults with COPD, including those with a smoking history, are at an increased risk for lung cancer incidence and mortality compared to those without COPD regardless of sex and race and ethnicity.Keywords: chronic obstructive pulmonary diseases, systematic review, United States, incidence, mortality, smoking
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.013 | 0.034 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".