Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23104210›Full record

Trial reportJournal of the National Cancer Institute2012

Predictors of adverse smoking outcomes in the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial.

Samantha A Barry, Martin C Tammemagi, Sofiya Penek, Elisabeth C Kassan, Caroline S Dorfman, Thomas L Riley, John Commin, Kathryn L Taylor

Registry-linked trialOpen access · bronzeAbstract readMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02267096 (Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center/Legacy Pilot Study to Reduce Adverse Smoking Outcomes in the Context of Lung Cancer Screening), which is not on this map. Cited by 16 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed
2.0field-weighted citation impact, top 13% of its field
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.

NCT02267096 phase3completednot on this mapstarted 2014, after this paper: background citation

Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center/Legacy Pilot Study to Reduce Adverse Smoking Outcomes in the Context of Lung Cancer Screening

TypeinterventionalSponsorGeorgetown UniversityRan2014 to 2016Enrolled95ConditionsSmoking, Lung CancerArmsTelephone Counseling, Minimal Treatment
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

16 citing papers in PubMed, 30 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Impact of lung cancer screening results on smoking cessation.Journal of the National Cancer Institute · 2014
    Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Observational
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. JNCI and cancer prevention.Journal of the National Cancer Institute · 2015
    Article
  14. Lung cancer screening with low-dose computed tomography.Radiologic clinics of North America · 2014
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
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

8 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Samantha A BarryGeorgetown University Medical Center, Washington, DC 20007, USA.
Martin C Tammemagi
Sofiya Penek
Elisabeth C Kassan
Caroline S Dorfman
Thomas L Riley
John Commin
Kathryn L Taylor
Brock University · CAGeorgetown University · USGeorgetown University Medical Center · US

Funding

PROSTATE, LUNG, COLORECTAL &OVARIAN CANCERN01CN025522 · CN · GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY · PI GELMANN, EDWARD P · 1992 to 2000
$817k
NCI NIH HHS N01-CN-25522
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe impact of lung cancer screening on smoking behavior is unclear. The aims of this ancillary study of the Prostate Lung Colorectal and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial were to produce risk prediction models to identify individuals at risk of relapse or continued smoking and to evaluate whether cancer-screening variables affect long-term smoking outcomes.

methodsParticipants completed a baseline questionnaire at trial enrollment and a supplemental questionnaire 4-14 years after enrollment, which assessed several cancer-related variables, including family history of cancer, comorbidities, and tobacco use. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to predict smoking status at completion of the supplemental questionnaire. The models' predictive performances were evaluated by assessing discrimination via the receiver operator characteristic area under the curve (ROC AUC) and calibration. Models were internally validated using bootstrap methods.

resultsOf the 31 694 former smokers on the baseline questionnaire, 1042 (3.3%) had relapsed (ie, reported being a current smoker on the supplemental questionnaire). Of the 6807 current smokers on the baseline questionnaire, 4439 (65.2%) reported continued smoking on the supplemental questionnaire. Relapse was associated with multiple demographic, medical, and tobacco-related characteristics. This model had a bootstrap median ROC AUC of 0.862 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.858 to 0.866) and a calibration slope of 1.004 (95% CI = 0.978 to 1.029), indicating excellent discrimination and calibration. Predictors of continued smoking also included multiple demographic, medical, and tobacco-related characteristics. This model had an ROC AUC of 0.611 (95% CI = 0.605 to 0.614) and a slope of 1.006 (95% CI = 0.962 to 1.041), indicating modest discrimination. Neither the trial arm nor the lung-screening result was statistically significantly associated with smoking outcomes.

conclusionThese models, if validated externally, may have public health utility in identifying individuals at risk for adverse smoking outcomes, who may benefit from relapse prevention and smoking cessation interventions.

Indexed as

Early Detection of CancerAdultAgedArea Under CurveClinical Trials as TopicColorectal NeoplasmsComorbidityDisease-Free SurvivalFemaleHumansLogistic ModelsLung NeoplasmsMaleMass ScreeningMiddle AgedMultivariate Analysis

Identifiers

PMID23104210
PMCPMC3490843
OpenAlexW2166618994

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

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.