Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23993734›Full record

Trial reportLung cancer (Amsterdam, Netherlands)2013

Diagnostic evaluation following a positive lung screening chest radiograph in the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, Ovarian (PLCO) Cancer Screening Trial.

William G Hocking, Martin C Tammemagi, John Commins, Martin M Oken, Paul A Kvale, Ping Hu, Lawrence R Ragard, Tom L Riley, Paul Pinsky, Thomas M Beck and 1 more

Open access · greenAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Lung cancer (Amsterdam, Netherlands), 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact, top 82% 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.

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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Effects of Personalized Risk Information on Patients Referred for Lung Cancer Screening with Low-Dose CT.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2019
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
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

11 authors at 8 institutions in 2 countries.

William G HockingDepartment of Oncology/Hematology, Marshfield Clinic, Marshfield, WI, USA. Electronic address: hocking.william@marshfieldclinic.org.
Martin C Tammemagi
John Commins
Martin M Oken
Paul A Kvale
Ping Hu
Lawrence R Ragard
Tom L Riley
Paul Pinsky
Thomas M Beck
Philip C Prorok
National Cancer Institute · USInformation Management Services · USBrock University · CAHenry Ford Health System · USMarshfield Clinic · USSt. Luke's Mountain States Tumor Institute · USUniversity of Minnesota · USWestat (United States) · US

Funding

PROSTATE, LUNG, COLORECTAL AND OVARIAN (PLCO) CANCERN01CN025518 · CN · MARSHFIELD CLINIC RESEARCH FOUNDATION · PI REDING, DOUGLAS · 1992 to 2000
$27k
PROSTATE, LUNG, COLORECTAL AND OVARIAN (PLCO) CANCER SCREENING TRIA-261925518N01CA025518 · NCI · MARSHFIELD MEDICAL RESEARCH · 2003 to 2003
–
NCI NIH HHS N01 CN025518NCI NIH HHS N01-CN-25518
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Lung cancer is the major cause of cancer mortality. One of the aims of the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial (PLCO) was to determine if annual screening chest radiographs reduce lung cancer mortality. We enrolled 154,900 individuals, aged 55-74 years; 77,445 were randomized to the intervention arm and received an annual chest radiograph for 3 or 4 years. Participants with a positive screen underwent diagnostic evaluation under guidance of their primary physician. Methods of diagnosis or exclusion of cancer, interval from screen to diagnosis, and factors predicting diagnostic testing were evaluated. One or more positive screens occurred in 17% of participants. Positive screens resulted in biopsy in 3%, with 54% positive for cancer. Biopsy likelihood was associated with a mass, smoking, age, and family history of lung cancer. Diagnostic testing stopped after a chest radiograph or computed tomography/magnetic resonance imaging in over half. After a second or subsequent positive screen, evaluation stopped after comparison to prior radiographs in over half. Of 308 screen-detected cancers, the diagnosis was established by thoracotomy/thoracoscopy in 47.7%, needle biopsy in 27.6%, bronchoscopy in 20.1% and mediastinoscopy in 2.9%. Eighty-four percent of screen-detected lung cancers were diagnosed within 6 months. Diagnostic evaluations following a positive screen were conducted in a timely fashion. Lung cancer was diagnosed by tissue biopsy or cytology in all cases. Lung cancer was excluded during evaluation of positive screening examinations by clinical or radiographic evaluation in all but 1.4% who required a tissue biopsy.

Indexed as

AgedBiopsyEarly Detection of CancerFemaleHumansLung NeoplasmsMaleMass ScreeningMiddle AgedPrognosisRadiographyRisk FactorsLung neoplasmsMethodsMortalityRadiographyRisk factorsScreening

Identifiers

PMID23993734
PMCPMC3818308
OpenAlexW2139248900

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.