ArticlePloS one2014
Comparing benefits from many possible computed tomography lung cancer screening programs: extrapolating from the National Lung Screening Trial using comparative modeling.
Article in PloS one, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers, 2 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
29 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Guideline
- Guideline
- Lung Cancer Incidence and Mortality with Extended Follow-up in the National Lung Screening Trial.Journal of thoracic oncology : official publication of the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer · 2019Trial
- Lung cancer detectability by test, histology, stage, and gender: estimates from the NLST and the PLCO trials.Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology · 2015Trial
- Structured narrative review on lung cancer screening: current evidence, clinical practice implications and implementation insights from a multidisciplinary task force and patient representatives.European respiratory review : an official journal of the European Respiratory Society · 2025Review
- Natural history models for lung Cancer: A scoping review.Lung cancer (Amsterdam, Netherlands) · 2025Article
- Occult metastases and survival of lung cancer by clinical diagnosis and CT screening: A simulation study.PloS one · 2025Article
- The Development and Performance of Alternative Criteria for Lung Cancer Screening.Annals of internal medicine · 2024Article
- Using the Past to Understand the Future of U.S. and Global Smoking Disparities: A Birth Cohort Perspective.American journal of preventive medicine · 2023Article
- Birth Cohort‒Specific Smoking Patterns by Family Income in the U.S.American journal of preventive medicine · 2023Article
- Risk Model-Based Lung Cancer Screening : A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.Annals of internal medicine · 2023Article
- Optimizing the use of adjuvant chemotherapy in non-small cell lung cancer patients with comorbidities.Current problems in cancer · 2022Article
- Cancer screening simulation models: a state of the art review.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2021Review
- Cost-effectiveness Evaluation of the 2021 US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation for Lung Cancer Screening.JAMA oncology · 2021Article
- Cost-Effectiveness of Smoking Cessation Interventions in the Lung Cancer Screening Setting: A Simulation Study.Journal of the National Cancer Institute · 2021Article
- Disparities of National Lung Cancer Screening Guidelines in the US Population.Journal of the National Cancer Institute · 2020Article
- Evaluating Discrimination of a Lung Cancer Risk Prediction Model Using Partial Risk-Score in a Two-Phase Study.Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology · 2020Article
- Optimizing selection of candidates for lung cancer screening: role of comorbidity, frailty and life expectancy.Translational lung cancer research · 2019Article
- Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Lung Cancer Screening Accounting for the Effect of Indeterminate Findings.JNCI cancer spectrum · 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
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
20 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) demonstrated that in current and former smokers aged 55 to 74 years, with at least 30 pack-years of cigarette smoking history and who had quit smoking no more than 15 years ago, 3 annual computed tomography (CT) screens reduced lung cancer-specific mortality by 20% relative to 3 annual chest X-ray screens. We compared the benefits achievable with 576 lung cancer screening programs that varied CT screen number and frequency, ages of screening, and eligibility based on smoking. METHODS AND
findingsWe used five independent microsimulation models with lung cancer natural history parameters previously calibrated to the NLST to simulate life histories of the US cohort born in 1950 under all 576 programs. 'Efficient' (within model) programs prevented the greatest number of lung cancer deaths, compared to no screening, for a given number of CT screens. Among 120 'consensus efficient' (identified as efficient across models) programs, the average starting age was 55 years, the stopping age was 80 or 85 years, the average minimum pack-years was 27, and the maximum years since quitting was 20. Among consensus efficient programs, 11% to 40% of the cohort was screened, and 153 to 846 lung cancer deaths were averted per 100,000 people. In all models, annual screening based on age and smoking eligibility in NLST was not efficient; continuing screening to age 80 or 85 years was more efficient.
conclusionsConsensus results from five models identified a set of efficient screening programs that include annual CT lung cancer screening using criteria like NLST eligibility but extended to older ages. Guidelines for screening should also consider harms of screening and individual patient characteristics.
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.