
OR WAIT null SECS
Developers emphasize plain language, explicit next steps, and clear limits to ensure the PLCOm2012-based tool supports, rather than replaces, formal lung cancer screening.
Safeguards were a central consideration in the design of the Lung Health Foundation’s online lung cancer risk calculator, particularly given the potential for patients, or even clinicians, to overinterpret a numerical risk estimate.
In an interview with HCPLive, Jessica Moffatt, PhD, vice president of programs, public affairs, and research at Lung Health Foundation, emphasized that the tool uses clear, plain language throughout and includes explicit guidance on next steps. At multiple points in the user journey, the call to action directs individuals to speak with a primary care provider or contact their provincial screening program. The calculator is framed as a supplemental resource.
“All patients can benefit from this,” Moffatt said. “It's really meant to be user-friendly across all patient populations, but it's especially important for patients who may not have a primary care provider. In many lung cancer screening jurisdictions, you can self-refer for a risk assessment. You don't necessarily need that primary care referral, and so for those patients who don't have a primary care provider, this also is a very useful tool for them to help [them] understand if they may be eligible for screening.”
The analysis showed that the calculator could generate a 6-year lung cancer risk estimate in 2 – 3 minutes with only 10 questions. A greater calculated risk does not indicate the presence of lung cancer, and a lower score does not eliminate risk. That distinction is reinforced within the interface to reduce the likelihood that patients equate risk estimation with diagnosis.
Moffatt emphasized that clinicians should not treat this patient-generated score as a definitive eligibility determination. The only official risk assessment is the one conducted within an organized screening program. Clinicians are encouraged to use the estimate to support shared decision-making and referral considerations, not to substitute for formal program-based evaluation.
Beyond mitigating misinterpretation, investigators hope the calculator addresses known barriers to screening. By allowing individuals to privately explore their risk, the tool may help reduce stigma associated with smoking-related disease. It may also prompt more primary care providers to consider lung cancer screening when appropriate.
Moffatt acknowledged that risk models must evolve alongside the evidence base. The current framework primarily reflects heavy smoking history, but rising lung cancer incidence among never-smokers may necessitate future updates. As validated models change, organized screening programs would be expected to adapt accordingly.
For now, Lung Health Foundation positions the calculator as an evidence-informed entry point: designed to clarify, not replace, clinical judgment.
“This is one of the first repackagings of a very cumbersome tool into something that's user-friendly,” Moffatt said. “We would encourage folks to definitely check it out on lunghealth.ca where you can find more information about the risk calculator. It really is meant for anyone interested in understanding their risk profile.”
References
Related Content: