ArticleJournal of thoracic oncology : official publication of the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer2015
Should Never-Smokers at Increased Risk for Lung Cancer Be Screened?
Article in Journal of thoracic oncology : official publication of the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 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
22 citing papers in PubMed, 42 citations in OpenAlex.
- LDCT screening for lung cancer in East Asian never-smokers: balancing benefits and overdiagnosis-related harms.The Lancet regional health. Western Pacific · 2026Review
- 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
- A generalized health index: automated thoracic CT-derived biomarkers predict life expectancy.The British journal of radiology · 2025Article
- Lung cancer screening by low-dose CT scan in France: final results of the DEP KP80 study after three rounds.EBioMedicine · 2024Article
- Race, age at diagnosis and histological characteristics of lung cancer in never-smokers (LCINS) and ever-smokers in low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) screening: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Translational lung cancer research · 2024Article
- Disparity in Lung Cancer Screening Among Smokers and Nonsmokers in China: Prospective Cohort Study.JMIR public health and surveillance · 2023Article
- Potential Overdiagnosis with CT Lung Cancer Screening in Taiwanese Female: Status in South Korea.Korean journal of radiology · 2022Article
- Risk-based prediction model for selecting eligible population for lung cancer screening among ever smokers in Korea.Translational lung cancer research · 2021Article
- Personalising lung cancer screening: An overview of risk-stratification opportunities and challenges.International journal of cancer · 2021Review
- Managing of screening-detected sub-solid nodules-a European perspective.Translational lung cancer research · 2021Review
- Recommendations for Implementing Lung Cancer Screening with Low-Dose Computed Tomography in Europe.Cancers · 2020Review
- A Comparative Modeling Analysis of Risk-Based Lung Cancer Screening Strategies.Journal of the National Cancer Institute · 2020Article
- The fate of subsolid nodule: predictable or unpredictable?Journal of thoracic disease · 2020Article
- Implementation planning for lung cancer screening in China.Precision clinical medicine · 2019Review
- Lung Cancer Screening with Low-Dose CT in Female Never Smokers: Retrospective Cohort Study with Long-term National Data Follow-up.Cancer research and treatment · 2018Article
- Screening for early stage lung cancer and its correlation with lung nodule detection.Journal of thoracic disease · 2018Review
- Identifying high-risk individuals for lung cancer screening: Going beyond NLST criteria.PloS one · 2018Article
- Risk prediction models for selection of lung cancer screening candidates: A retrospective validation study.PLoS medicine · 2017Article
- Evaluating lung cancer screening in China: Implications for eligibility criteria design from a microsimulation modeling approach.PloS one · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
introductionLung cancer in never-smokers ranks among the 10 most common causes of death due to cancer worldwide and in the United States. However, it is unknown whether never-smokers at elevated risk for developing lung cancer may benefit from lung cancer screening.
methodsThe MIcrosimulation SCreening ANalysis (MISCAN)-Lung microsimulation model was used to assess the effects of lung cancer screening for simulated cohorts of never-smokers at different levels of relative risk (RR) for lung cancer compared with never-smokers at average risk. The benefits and harms of screening were estimated for each cohort and compared with those of a cohort of ever-smokers eligible for lung cancer screening according to the United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) criteria.
resultsThe relative lung cancer mortality reduction in never-smokers was higher than the USPSTF eligible cohort (37% compared with 32%). However, the number of life-years gained per lung cancer death averted was lower (10.4 compared with 11.9) and the proportion of overdiagnosed cancers was higher (9.6% compared with 8.4%) for never-smokers compared with the USPSTF eligible cohort, as never-smokers are diagnosed at a later age. The estimated number of screens per lung cancer death averted ranged from 6162 for never-smokers at average risk to 151 for never-smokers with an RR of 35 compared with 353 for the USPSTF eligible cohort.
conclusionsNever-smokers with RRs of 15 to 35 have similar to better trade-offs between benefits and harms compared with ever-smokers recommended for lung cancer screening by the USPSTF guidelines. For most never-smokers, lung cancer screening is not beneficial.
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.