NORDCAN
Nordic cancer statistics including incidence, mortality, prevalence, and survival data. Useful for population-level comparisons and research questions.
Open NORDCANPurpose of this page
This page collects tools and educational resources that can support Nordic lung cancer research, teaching, pathway development, and quality improvement.
Some resources are external tools maintained by other organisations. Some are NTOG pages that summarise clinical resources, protocols, or research priorities. Some are proposed educational tools that are not yet implemented.
NTOG does not replace national guidelines, local clinical protocols, multidisciplinary team decisions, or validated clinical decision support systems.
Clinical disclaimer: Tools linked or described here are for information, education, research planning, or quality improvement. They are not a substitute for local validated tools, national guidelines, clinical judgment, or multidisciplinary team assessment.
Current external tools and resources
Selected external resources useful for Nordic lung cancer research, education, and pathway work.
National lung cancer guidelines
Links to Swedish, Norwegian, Danish, and Finnish national lung cancer guideline systems are collected on the NTOG guidelines page.
View guideline comparisonNORTHDIP
Nordic Radiotherapy Diploma Programme. Relevant for education and professional development in radiotherapy and thoracic oncology.
Open NORTHDIPMDT structure and pathway research
NTOG research news summarises Nordic work on multidisciplinary team meetings and highlights questions for quality improvement and care pathway research.
Read MDT articleQuality indicators and registries
Research news and protocol pages describe Nordic questions around lung cancer quality indicators, registry variables, care pathways, and survival comparisons.
Read registry articleScreening and nodule management
NTOG is developing Nordic educational and harmonisation work around lung cancer screening and pulmonary nodule follow-up.
View nodule pageMDT structure resources
NTOG provides an educational lung cancer MDT checklist to support structured preparation for multidisciplinary discussion.
NTOG tools
NTOG tools
Lung cancer MDT checklist tools
NTOG provides two browser-based MDT checklist formats for lung cancer discussion: an open-ended checklist for flexible preparation and a structured checklist for systematic documentation of key MDT variables.
Both tools are intended for structured preparation, teaching, local adaptation, and quality improvement. They do not replace national guidelines, local MDT documentation systems, multidisciplinary judgment, or clinical responsibility.
Open-ended MDT checklist
Flexible free-text format for preparing cases, capturing clinical nuance, documenting uncertainty, and supporting discussion in MDT meetings.
Open free-text checklistStructured MDT checklist
Field-based format for systematic capture of patient fitness, imaging, pathology, biomarkers, staging, treatment intent, and MDT outcome.
Open structured checklistTreatment Compass
NTOG provides an educational lung cancer treatment comparision.
Treatment value discussion tools
NTOG provides two browser-based formats for structured discussion of treatment value: a flexible Treatment Value Discussion Compass and a structured value profile for systematic documentation of benefit, harm, evidence certainty, patient fit, and resource context.
Both tools are intended for education, research planning, local adaptation, and transparent discussion of thoracic oncology evidence. They do not replace national reimbursement assessment, formal cost-effectiveness modelling, clinical judgment, patient preference, MDT decision-making, or local treatment guidelines.
Treatment Value Discussion Compass
Flexible discussion tool for reflecting on clinical benefit, toxicity, uncertainty, quality of life, cost context, patient goals, and implementation burden without reducing the decision to QALY alone.
Open discussion compassStructured value profile
Field-based format for systematic capture of OS benefit, hazard ratio, absolute benefit, NNT, NNH, toxicity, evidence maturity, patient fit, resource use, QALY and ICER.
Treatment value profile
Clinical benefit
Toxicity
Evidence certainty
Patient goals
Quality of life
NNT
NNH
Cost context
QALY context
ICER context
Educational hub for nodule management and screening
NTOG is considering an educational comparison hub for published pulmonary nodule and lung cancer screening models, algorithms, and frameworks.
Concept in development
Educational value: comparison, not calculation
The proposed hub would place published nodule and screening calculators side by side so clinicians, trainees, and researchers can see how different frameworks agree or disagree when applied to the same example case.
It would not recommend biopsy, surgery, treatment, or a final management decision. It would not store patient data. It would not be a clinical decision support tool.
Understand screening risk nodule and screening calculators
Educational use only: The proposed hub is for teaching, model comparison, and research discussion. Use your local validated tool and your multidisciplinary team.”
Proposed educational hub scope
The hub would show how published models and pathways differ, without creating a composite recommendation.
1. Basic calculators
- Pack-years
- Body mass index
- Volume doubling time
- Simple growth categories
2. Screening eligibility
- USPSTF-style eligibility
- NELSON-style eligibility
- PLCOm2012 risk threshold comparison
- HUNT model comparison
3. Nodule risk models
- Brock / PanCan
- Mayo / Swensen
- Herder PET-refined probability
- Development-cohort warnings
4. Management frameworks
- Fleischner 2017
- BTS 2015
- Lung-RADS v2022
- NELSON volumetric protocols
- ESTI screening management
5. Comparison view
- One example case, multiple frameworks
- Side-by-side management output
- Concordance and disagreement display
- “Why they differ” explanation
6. Communication widgets
- False-positive expectations
- Overdiagnosis explanation
- Radiation dose context
- Smoking cessation and future eligibility
Illustrative calculator and framework inventory
This inventory is a planning list. Inclusion does not mean the tool is implemented, validated by NTOG, or recommended for clinical use.
| Category | Examples | Educational purpose |
|---|---|---|
| Risk and eligibility models | PLCOm2012, HUNT, USPSTF-style eligibility, NELSON-style eligibility | Show how screening eligibility changes depending on model assumptions, population, and smoking-history variables. |
| Nodule malignancy probability | Brock / PanCan, Mayo / Swensen, Herder | Compare how per-nodule risk estimates differ when morphology, patient factors, and PET findings are handled differently. |
| Nodule follow-up frameworks | Fleischner 2017, BTS 2015, Lung-RADS v2022, NELSON volumetric protocols, ESTI statements | Show how the same nodule can receive different follow-up or referral advice under different frameworks. |
| Programme-level communication | False positives, overdiagnosis, radiation dose context, smoking cessation | Support teaching and patient communication using population-level context, not individual diagnosis. |
Editorial and governance principles
Any future NTOG educational calculator page should be transparent, version-stamped, citation-anchored, and clinically cautious.
- Every model should display its name, year, version, coefficient source, and citation.
- Every model should show when inputs fall outside the development-cohort range.
- No model averaging or “recommended” answer across frameworks.
- No patient identifiers should be entered.
- Inputs should not be stored, transmitted, or persisted.
- Clinical deployment, if ever pursued, must be separate from the public educational hub and require local validation, governance, audit, and data protection review.