Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25460915›Full record

ArticlePLoS medicine2014

Evaluation of the lung cancer risks at which to screen ever- and never-smokers: screening rules applied to the PLCO and NLST cohorts.

Martin C Tammemägi, Timothy R Church, William G Hocking, Gerard A Silvestri, Paul A Kvale, Thomas L Riley, John Commins, Christine D Berg

Erratum issuedOpen access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PLoS medicine, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 166 papers, 10 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
166citing papers in PubMed, 10 pooled it
17.1field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

166 citing papers in PubMed, 10 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 354 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Guideline
  8. Pooled it
  9. Lung Cancer Screening, Version 3.2018, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology.Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network : JNCCN · 2018
    Guideline
  10. Guideline
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Potential Impact of Including Time to First Cigarette in Risk Models for Selecting Ever-Smokers for Lung Cancer Screening.Journal of thoracic oncology : official publication of the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer · 2017
    Trial
  15. Trial
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article

106 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 7 institutions in 2 countries.

Martin C TammemägiDepartment of Health Sciences, Brock University, St. Catharines, Ontario, Canada.
Timothy R ChurchSchool of Public Health, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota, United States of America.
William G HockingMarshfield Clinic, Marshfield, Wisconsin, United States of America.
Gerard A SilvestriPulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, South Carolina, United States of America.
Paul A KvalePulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Henry Ford Health System, Detroit, Michigan, United States of America.
Thomas L RileyInformation Management Systems, Rockville, Maryland, United States of America.
John ComminsInformation Management Systems, Rockville, Maryland, United States of America.
Christine D BergDepartment of Radiation Oncology and Molecular Radiation Sciences, Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, United States of America.
Automation, Information, and Management Systems (United States) · USBrock University · CAHenry Ford Health System · USJohns Hopkins Medicine · USMarshfield Clinic · USMedical University of South Carolina · USUniversity of Minnesota · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundLung cancer risks at which individuals should be screened with computed tomography (CT) for lung cancer are undecided. This study's objectives are to identify a risk threshold for selecting individuals for screening, to compare its efficiency with the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) criteria for identifying screenees, and to determine whether never-smokers should be screened. Lung cancer risks are compared between smokers aged 55-64 and ≥ 65-80 y. METHODS AND

findingsApplying the PLCO(m2012) model, a model based on 6-y lung cancer incidence, we identified the risk threshold above which National Lung Screening Trial (NLST, n = 53,452) CT arm lung cancer mortality rates were consistently lower than rates in the chest X-ray (CXR) arm. We evaluated the USPSTF and PLCO(m2012) risk criteria in intervention arm (CXR) smokers (n = 37,327) of the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial (PLCO). The numbers of smokers selected for screening, and the sensitivities, specificities, and positive predictive values (PPVs) for identifying lung cancers were assessed. A modified model (PLCOall2014) evaluated risks in never-smokers. At PLCO(m2012) risk ≥ 0.0151, the 65th percentile of risk, the NLST CT arm mortality rates are consistently below the CXR arm's rates. The number needed to screen to prevent one lung cancer death in the 65th to 100th percentile risk group is 255 (95% CI 143 to 1,184), and in the 30th to <65th percentile risk group is 963 (95% CI 291 to -754); the number needed to screen could not be estimated in the <30th percentile risk group because of absence of lung cancer deaths. When applied to PLCO intervention arm smokers, compared to the USPSTF criteria, the PLCO(m2012) risk ≥ 0.0151 threshold selected 8.8% fewer individuals for screening (p<0.001) but identified 12.4% more lung cancers (sensitivity 80.1% [95% CI 76.8%-83.0%] versus 71.2% [95% CI 67.6%-74.6%], p<0.001), had fewer false-positives (specificity 66.2% [95% CI 65.7%-66.7%] versus 62.7% [95% CI 62.2%-63.1%], p<0.001), and had higher PPV (4.2% [95% CI 3.9%-4.6%] versus 3.4% [95% CI 3.1%-3.7%], p<0.001). In total, 26% of individuals selected for screening based on USPSTF criteria had risks below the threshold PLCO(m2012) risk ≥ 0.0151. Of PLCO former smokers with quit time >15 y, 8.5% had PLCO(m2012) risk ≥ 0.0151. None of 65,711 PLCO never-smokers had PLCO(m2012) risk ≥ 0.0151. Risks and lung cancers were significantly greater in PLCO smokers aged ≥ 65-80 y than in those aged 55-64 y. This study omitted cost-effectiveness analysis.

conclusionsThe USPSTF criteria for CT screening include some low-risk individuals and exclude some high-risk individuals. Use of the PLCO(m2012) risk ≥ 0.0151 criterion can improve screening efficiency. Currently, never-smokers should not be screened. Smokers aged ≥ 65-80 y are a high-risk group who may benefit from screening. Please see later in the article for the Editors' Summary.

Indexed as

AgedCost-Benefit AnalysisFemaleHumansLung NeoplasmsMaleMass ScreeningMiddle AgedRisk AssessmentSmoking

Identifiers

PMID25460915
PMCPMC4251899
OpenAlexW2029944316

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.