ArticleLung2015
Community low-dose CT lung cancer screening: a prospective cohort study.
Article in Lung, 2015. 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 7 papers.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 19 citations in OpenAlex.
- Using a genetic/clinical risk score to stop smoking (GeTSS): randomised controlled trial.BMC research notes · 2017Trial
- Lessons Learned From International Lung Cancer Screening Trials; People at Risk Deserve Screening for Early Detection.Respirology (Carlton, Vic.) · 2025Review
- Utility of incorporating a gene-based lung cancer risk test on uptake and adherence in a community-based lung cancer screening pilot study.Preventive medicine reports · 2021Article
- Lung cancers and pulmonary nodules detected by computed tomography scan: a population-level analysis of screening cohorts.Annals of translational medicine · 2021Article
- Reproducible Machine Learning Methods for Lung Cancer Detection Using Computed Tomography Images: Algorithm Development and Validation.Journal of medical Internet research · 2020Article
- Article
- Population impact of lung cancer screening in the United States: Projections from a microsimulation model.PLoS medicine · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) in 2011 showed that low-dose CT (LDCT) screening in high-risk groups reduces lung cancer deaths. Major professional organizations, as well as the U.S. Preventative Services Task Force, have endorsed LDCT screening in these select populations. However, major questions remain about whether widespread deployment of CT screening can achieve results similar to the NLST, especially in the community setting.
methodsA prospective cohort study was initiated in November 2010. Participants at least 50 years old and with at least 20 pack-years of smoking history underwent LDCT screening in a community setting.
resultsOne hundred and fifty four participants underwent LDCT screening with median follow-up of 2.7 years. Compared with the NLST, there was a higher rate of positive screening tests (35.7 vs. 27.3 %), higher false positive rate (100 vs. 96.4 %), and poor adherence (43 vs. 95 %). Invasive diagnostic follow-up was uncommon and uncomplicated. No interval lung cancer was detected. Late follow-up was mostly attributed to participant or primary care provider preference (67.5 %), participants lost to follow-up (17.5 %), and lack of insurance (10 %).
conclusionsThese findings highlight the potential challenges of generalizing the NLST mortality benefits in the broad deployment of CT screening. Our results support current recommendations that LDCT screening be performed in a highly structured and integrated setting.
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.