Trial reportThe New England journal of medicine2013
Results of the two incidence screenings in the National Lung Screening Trial.
Trial report in The New England journal of medicine, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 2 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 240 papers, 11 of them syntheses 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.
National Lung Screening Trial A Randomized Trial Comparing Low-dose Helical CT With Chest Xray for Lung Cancer
Screening for Lung Cancer in Subjects With Family History of Lung Cancer
Who cites it
240 citing papers in PubMed, 11 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Potential clinical utility of liquid biopsy in early-stage non-small cell lung cancer.BMC medicine · 2022Pooled it
- Impact of low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) screening on lung cancer-related mortality.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2022Pooled it
- Health Disparities Across Lung Cancer Continuum Among Asian Americans: A Systematic Review.Journal of immigrant and minority health · 2022Pooled it
- Small-cell lung cancer: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-upAnnals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology · 2021Guideline
- Low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) versus other cancer screenings in early diagnosis of lung cancer: A meta-analysis.Medicine · 2018Pooled it
- Lung Cancer Screening, Version 3.2018, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology.Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network : JNCCN · 2018Guideline
- The value of 18F-FDG-PET/CT in the diagnosis of solitary pulmonary nodules: A meta-analysis.Medicine · 2018Pooled it
- Evaluating Molecular Biomarkers for the Early Detection of Lung Cancer: When Is a Biomarker Ready for Clinical Use? An Official American Thoracic Society Policy Statement.American journal of respiratory and critical care medicine · 2017Guideline
- [Systematic Review of the Methodology Quality in Lung Cancer Screening Guidelines].Zhongguo fei ai za zhi = Chinese journal of lung cancer · 2016Pooled it
- Doubly blind: a systematic review of gender in randomised controlled trials.Global health action · 2016Pooled it
- ESR/ERS white paper on lung cancer screening.European radiology · 2015Guideline
- A Multilevel Approach to Improve Participation in Low-Dose CT for Lung Cancer Screening (Empower LCS): A Single-Arm Pilot Feasibility Clinical Trial.Journal of the American College of Radiology : JACR · 2026Trial
- Improving the efficiency of identifying malignant pulmonary nodules before surgery via a combination of artificial intelligence CT image recognition and serum autoantibodies.European radiology · 2023Trial
- Cost-Effectiveness of a Telephone-Based Smoking Cessation Randomized Trial in the Lung Cancer Screening Setting.JNCI cancer spectrum · 2022Trial
- Trial
- Sequential screening for lung cancer in a high-risk group: randomised controlled trial: LungSEARCH: a randomised controlled trial of Surveillance using sputum and imaging for the EARly detection of lung Cancer in a High-risk group.The European respiratory journal · 2019Trial
- Validation of the SHOX2/PTGER4 DNA Methylation Marker Panel for Plasma-Based Discrimination between Patients with Malignant and Nonmalignant Lung Disease.Journal of thoracic oncology : official publication of the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer · 2017Trial
- Low-dose computed tomography for lung cancer screening: comparison of performance between annual and biennial screen.European radiology · 2016Trial
- Lung cancer incidence and mortality in National Lung Screening Trial participants who underwent low-dose CT prevalence screening: a retrospective cohort analysis of a randomised, multicentre, diagnostic screening trial.The Lancet. Oncology · 2016Trial
- Utility and Safety of a Novel Preoperative Marking via Ultrathin Bronchoscopy in Thoracic Surgery.Lung · 2026Article
180 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
19 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe National Lung Screening Trial was conducted to determine whether three annual screenings (rounds T0, T1, and T2) with low-dose helical computed tomography (CT), as compared with chest radiography, could reduce mortality from lung cancer. We present detailed findings from the first two incidence screenings (rounds T1 and T2).
methodsWe evaluated the rate of adherence of the participants to the screening protocol, the results of screening and downstream diagnostic tests, features of the lung-cancer cases, and first-line treatments, and we estimated the performance characteristics of both screening methods.
resultsAt the T1 and T2 rounds, positive screening results were observed in 27.9% and 16.8% of participants in the low-dose CT group and in 6.2% and 5.0% of participants in the radiography group, respectively. In the low-dose CT group, the sensitivity was 94.4%, the specificity was 72.6%, the positive predictive value was 2.4%, and the negative predictive value was 99.9% at T1; at T2, the positive predictive value increased to 5.2%. In the radiography group, the sensitivity was 59.6%, the specificity was 94.1%, the positive predictive value was 4.4%, and the negative predictive value was 99.8% at T1; both the sensitivity and the positive predictive value increased at T2. Among lung cancers of known stage, 87 (47.5%) were stage IA and 57 (31.1%) were stage III or IV in the low-dose CT group at T1; in the radiography group, 31 (23.5%) were stage IA and 78 (59.1%) were stage III or IV at T1. These differences in stage distribution between groups persisted at T2.
conclusionsLow-dose CT was more sensitive in detecting early-stage lung cancers, but its measured positive predictive value was lower than that of radiography. As compared with radiography, the two annual incidence screenings with low-dose CT resulted in a decrease in the number of advanced-stage cancers diagnosed and an increase in the number of early-stage lung cancers diagnosed. (Funded by the National Cancer Institute; NLST ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00047385.).
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.