Trial reportCancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology2015
Lung cancer detectability by test, histology, stage, and gender: estimates from the NLST and the PLCO trials.
Trial report in Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 63 papers, 6 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
63 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 108 citations in OpenAlex.
- Prediction models for early detection and diagnosis of lung cancer in people who have never smoked: a systematic review and critical appraisal.Cancer causes & control : CCC · 2026Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Pooled it
- The impact of pancreatic cancer screening on life expectancy: A systematic review of modeling studies.International journal of cancer · 2023Pooled it
- EarlyCDT Lung blood test for risk classification of solid pulmonary nodules: systematic review and economic evaluation.Health technology assessment (Winchester, England) · 2022Pooled it
- All-cause mortality versus cancer-specific mortality as outcome in cancer screening trials: A review and modeling study.Cancer medicine · 2019Pooled it
- A comparative analysis of heterogeneity in lung cancer screening effectiveness in two randomised controlled trials.Nature communications · 2025Trial
- Cost-Effectiveness of a Telephone-Based Smoking Cessation Randomized Trial in the Lung Cancer Screening Setting.JNCI cancer spectrum · 2022Trial
- Should Multi-Cancer Early Detection Testing Replace Guideline-Recommended Colorectal Cancer Screening? A Comparative Modeling Analysis.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2026Article
- Cost-Effectiveness of Universal Low-Dose Computed Tomographic Lung Cancer Screening in Singapore.JAMA network open · 2026Article
- Benefits and harms of lung cancer screening strategies in Argentina: a modeling study.Lancet regional health. Americas · 2026Article
- Article
- Article
- Stage- and histology-specific sensitivity for the detection of lung cancer of the NELSON screening protocol-A modeling study.International journal of cancer · 2025Article
- Article
- Cost-effectiveness of risk model-based lung cancer screening in smokers and nonsmokers in China.BMC medicine · 2025Article
- Natural history models for lung Cancer: A scoping review.Lung cancer (Amsterdam, Netherlands) · 2025Article
- Article
- Targeted lung cancer screening in the age of immunotherapies and targeted therapies - an economic evaluation for Australia.The Lancet regional health. Western Pacific · 2024Article
- Novel Immunohistochemical Profiling of Small-Cell Lung Cancer: Correlations Between Tumor Subtypes and Immune Microenvironment.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
3 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundImplementing optimal lung cancer screening programs requires knowledge of the natural history and detectability of lung cancer. This information can be derived from the results of clinical trials with the aid of microsimulation models.
methodsData from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) program and individual-level data from the National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) and the Prostate, Lung, Colon, and Ovarian Cancer Screening trial (PLCO) were used to investigate the sensitivity (by histology and stage) of CT and chest radiography (CXR) and the mean preclinical sojourn time (MPST) of lung cancer (by gender, histology, and stage). The MISCAN-Lung model was used to reproduce the lung cancer incidence by method of detection (clinically or screen-detected), gender, histology, and stage in both trials and SEER, by calibrating CT and CXR sensitivity and natural history parameters.
resultsCT sensitivity ranges from 8.83% to 99.35% and CXR sensitivity from 2.51% to 97.31%, depending on histology and stage. CT sensitivity for stage IA is more than 3-fold higher compared with CXR, for all histologies. The total MPST estimates for lung cancer progressing through preclinical stages IA to IV range from 3.09 to 5.32 years for men and 3.35 to 6.01 years for women. The largest difference in total MPST between genders was estimated for adenocarcinoma.
conclusionsWe estimate longer MPSTs for lung cancer compared with previous research, suggesting a greater window of opportunity for lung cancer screening. IMPACT: This study provides detailed insights into the natural history of lung cancer and CT screening effectiveness.
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.