Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22526165›Full record

Trial reportJournal of cancer research and clinical oncology2012

Randomized study on early detection of lung cancer with MSCT in Germany: study design and results of the first screening round.

N Becker, E Motsch, M-L Gross, A Eigentopf, C P Heussel, H Dienemann, P A Schnabel, L Pilz, M Eichinger, D-E Optazaite and 3 more

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Journal of cancer research and clinical oncology, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 62 papers, 8 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
62citing papers in PubMed, 8 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

62 citing papers in PubMed, 8 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Lung Cancer Imaging: Screening Result and Nodule Management.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    Pooled it
  4. Guideline
  5. Guideline
  6. Lung Cancer Screening with Low-Dose CT: a Meta-Analysis.Journal of general internal medicine · 2020
    Pooled it
  7. Guideline
  8. Screening for lung cancer.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2013
    Pooled it
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Article
  13. Lung cancer screening in Lithuania: a cost-effectiveness analysis.Journal of comparative effectiveness research · 2026
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review

2 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

13 authors.

N BeckerDivision of Cancer Epidemiology, German Cancer Research Center, Im Neuenheimer Feld 581, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany. n.becker@dkfz.de
E Motsch
M-L Gross
A Eigentopf
C P Heussel
H Dienemann
P A Schnabel
L Pilz
M Eichinger
D-E Optazaite
M Puderbach
J Tremper
S Delorme

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeLow-dose multislice-CT (MSCT) detects many early-stage lung cancers with good prognosis, but whether it decreases lung cancer mortality and at which costs is yet insufficiently explored. Scope of the present study is to examine within a common European effort whether MSCT screening is capable to reduce the lung cancer mortality by at least 20 % and at which amount of undesired side effects this could be achieved.

methodsOverall 4,052 heavy smoking men and women were recruited by a population-based approach and randomized into a screening arm with five annual MSCT screens and an initial quit-smoking counseling, and a control arm with initial quit-smoking counseling and five annual questionnaire inquiries.

resultsIn the first screening round, 2,029 participants received a MSCT providing 1,488 negative and 540 suspicious screens with early recalls (early recall rate 26.6 %) leading to 31 biopsies (biopsy rate 1.5 %) and 22 confirmed lung cancers (detection rate 1.1 %). Among the lung cancers, 15 were adenocarcinomas, 3 squamous cell carcinomas, one small-cell lung cancer, and 3 others, whereby 18 were in clinical stage I, one in stage II, and 3 in stage III. One interval cancer occurred.

conclusionsThe indicated performance indicators fit into the range observed in comparable trials. The study continues finalizing the second screening round and for the first participants even the last screening round. The unresolved issue of the precise amount of side effects and the high early recall rate precludes currently the recommendation of MSCT as screening tool for lung cancer.

Indexed as

Early Detection of CancerAdenocarcinomaAdultAgedCarcinoma, Squamous CellFemaleGermanyHumansLungLung NeoplasmsMaleMass ScreeningMiddle AgedNeoplasm StagingReproducibility of ResultsSensitivity and Specificity

Identifiers

PMID22526165
PMCPMC12443666

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.