ArticleRisk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis2012
Chapter 9: The MGH-HMS lung cancer policy model: tobacco control versus screening.
Article in Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
27 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- EarlyCDT Lung blood test for risk classification of solid pulmonary nodules: systematic review and economic evaluation.Health technology assessment (Winchester, England) · 2022Pooled it
- The impact of adherence on colorectal cancer screening cost-effectiveness: A modeling study.PLoS medicine · 2025Article
- A Scoping Review on Calibration Methods for Cancer Simulation Models.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2025Article
- Projected Trends in the Incidence and Mortality of Uterine Cancer in the United States.Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology · 2025Article
- Natural history models for lung Cancer: A scoping review.Lung cancer (Amsterdam, Netherlands) · 2025Article
- The Impact of Model Assumptions on Personalized Lung Cancer Screening Recommendations.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2024Article
- The Benefits and Harms of Lung Cancer Screening in Individuals With Comorbidities.JTO clinical and research reports · 2024Article
- Comparison of Stage I Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer Treatments for Patients Living With HIV: A Simulation Study.Clinical lung cancer · 2023Article
- Risk Model-Based Lung Cancer Screening : A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.Annals of internal medicine · 2023Article
- Assessment of treatment strategies for stage I non-small cell lung cancer in patients with comorbidities.Lung cancer (Amsterdam, Netherlands) · 2022Article
- Article
- Cost-effectiveness Evaluation of the 2021 US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation for Lung Cancer Screening.JAMA oncology · 2021Article
- Optimal treatment strategies for stage I non-small cell lung cancer in veterans with pulmonary and cardiac comorbidities.PloS one · 2021Article
- A Comparative Modeling Analysis of Risk-Based Lung Cancer Screening Strategies.Journal of the National Cancer Institute · 2020Article
- Predicting the Epidemiological Dynamics of Lung Cancer in Japan.Journal of clinical medicine · 2019Article
- Benefits and harms of lung cancer screening in HIV-infected individuals with CD4+ cell count at least 500 cells/μl.AIDS (London, England) · 2018Article
- Population impact of lung cancer screening in the United States: Projections from a microsimulation model.PLoS medicine · 2018Article
- Article
- Evaluating lung cancer screening in China: Implications for eligibility criteria design from a microsimulation modeling approach.PloS one · 2017Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The natural history model underlying the MGH Lung Cancer Policy Model (LCPM) does not include the two-stage clonal expansion model employed in other CISNET lung models. We used the LCPM to predict numbers of U.S. lung cancer deaths for ages 30-84 between 1975 and 2000 under four scenarios as part of the comparative modeling analysis described in this issue. The LCPM is a comprehensive microsimulation model of lung cancer development, progression, detection, treatment, and survival. Individual-level patient histories are aggregated to estimate cohort or population-level outcomes. Lung cancer states are defined according to underlying disease variables, test results, and clinical events. By simulating detailed clinical procedures, the LCPM can predict benefits and harms attributable to a variety of patient management practices, including annual screening programs. Under the scenario of observed smoking patterns, predicted numbers of deaths from the calibrated LCPM were within 2% of observed over all years (1975-2000). The LCPM estimated that historical tobacco control policies achieved 28.6% (25.2% in men, 30.5% in women) of the potential reduction in U.S. lung cancer deaths had smoking had been eliminated entirely. The hypothetical adoption in 1975 of annual helical CT screening of all persons aged 55-74 with at least 30 pack-years of cigarette exposure to historical tobacco control would have yielded a proportion realized of 39.0% (42.0% in men, 33.3% in women). The adoption of annual screening would have prevented less than half as many lung cancer deaths as the elimination of cigarette smoking.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.