Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26485620›Full record

Trial reportAmerican journal of respiratory and critical care medicine2016

Results of the Randomized Danish Lung Cancer Screening Trial with Focus on High-Risk Profiling.

Mathilde M W Wille, Asger Dirksen, Haseem Ashraf, Zaigham Saghir, Karen S Bach, John Brodersen, Paul F Clementsen, Hanne Hansen, Klaus R Larsen, Jann Mortensen and 6 more

2 registry-linked trialsAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in American journal of respiratory and critical care medicine, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 2 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 149 papers, 19 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
149citing papers in PubMed, 19 pooled it
20.6field-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.

NCT00496977 naunknown statusnot on this map

Screening for Lung Cancer. A Randomised Controlled Trial of Low-Dose CT-Scanning.

TypeinterventionalSponsorDanish Lung Cancer GroupRan2004 to 2010Enrolled4,104ConditionsLung CancerArmsannual CT screening
NCT05432739 recruitingnot on this mapstarted 2021, after this paper: background citation

Nodule IMmunophenotyping Biomarker for Lung Cancer Early Diagnosis Study

TypeobservationalSponsorRoyal Marsden NHS Foundation TrustRan2021 to 2031Enrolled500ConditionsLung Cancer
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

149 citing papers in PubMed, 19 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 337 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Risk prediction for lung cancer screening: a systematic review and meta-regression.European respiratory review : an official journal of the European Respiratory Society · 2026
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Lung Cancer Screening With Low-Dose Computed Tomography.Deutsches Arzteblatt international · 2023
    Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Guideline
  14. Guideline
  15. Pooled it
  16. Lung Cancer Screening with Low-Dose CT: a Meta-Analysis.Journal of general internal medicine · 2020
    Pooled it
  17. Pooled it
  18. Lung Cancer Screening, Version 3.2018, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology.Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network : JNCCN · 2018
    Guideline
  19. Recommendations from the European Society of Thoracic Surgeons (ESTS) regarding computed tomography screening for lung cancer in Europe.European journal of cardio-thoracic surgery : official journal of the European Association for Cardio-thoracic Surgery · 2017
    Guideline
  20. Trial

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

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

16 authors at 7 institutions in 4 countries.

Mathilde M W Wille1 Department of Respiratory Medicine and.
Asger Dirksen1 Department of Respiratory Medicine and.
Haseem Ashraf1 Department of Respiratory Medicine and.
Zaigham Saghir4 Department of Respiratory Medicine and.
Karen S Bach5 Department of Radiology, Gentofte University Hospital, University of Copenhagen, Hellerup, Denmark.
John Brodersen6 Research Unit for General Practice, Faculty of Health Science, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Paul F Clementsen1 Department of Respiratory Medicine and.
Hanne Hansen8 Department of Radiology, Bispebjerg Hospital, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Klaus R Larsen4 Department of Respiratory Medicine and.
Jann Mortensen9 Department of Clinical Physiology, Nuclear Medicine and PET, and.
Jakob F Rasmussen6 Research Unit for General Practice, Faculty of Health Science, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Niels Seersholm1 Department of Respiratory Medicine and.
Birgit G Skov10 Department of Pathology, Rigshospitalet and Bispebjerg Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark; and.
Laura H Thomsen1 Department of Respiratory Medicine and.
Philip Tønnesen11 Danish Center for Sleep Medicine, Glostrup Hospital, Glostrup, Denmark.
Jesper H Pedersen12 Department of Thoracic Surgery, Rigshospitalet, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Respiratory Clinical Trials · AUUniversity of Copenhagen · DKAkershus University Hospital · NOBispebjerg Hospital · DKGlostrup Hospital · DKNordsjællands Hospital · DKPetronas (Malaysia) · MY

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

rationaleAs of April 2015, participants in the Danish Lung Cancer Screening Trial had been followed for at least 5 years since their last screening.

objectivesMortality, causes of death, and lung cancer findings are reported to explore the effect of computed tomography (CT) screening.

methodsA total of 4,104 participants aged 50-70 years at the time of inclusion and with a minimum 20 pack-years of smoking were randomized to have five annual low-dose CT scans (study group) or no screening (control group). MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN

resultsFollow-up information regarding date and cause of death, lung cancer diagnosis, cancer stage, and histology was obtained from national registries. No differences between the two groups in lung cancer mortality (hazard ratio, 1.03; 95% confidence interval, 0.66-1.6; P = 0.888) or all-cause mortality (hazard ratio, 1.02; 95% confidence interval, 0.82-1.27; P = 0.867) were observed. More cancers were found in the screening group than in the no-screening group (100 vs. 53, respectively; P < 0.001), particularly adenocarcinomas (58 vs. 18, respectively; P < 0.001). More early-stage cancers (stages I and II, 54 vs. 10, respectively; P < 0.001) and stage IIIa cancers (15 vs. 3, respectively; P = 0.009) were found in the screening group than in the control group. Stage IV cancers were nonsignificantly more frequent in the control group than in the screening group (32 vs. 23, respectively; P = 0.278). For the highest-stage cancers (T4N3M1, 21 vs. 8, respectively; P = 0.025), this difference was statistically significant, indicating an absolute stage shift. Older participants, those with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and those with more than 35 pack-years of smoking had a significantly increased risk of death due to lung cancer, with nonsignificantly fewer deaths in the screening group.

conclusionsNo statistically significant effects of CT screening on lung cancer mortality were found, but the results of post hoc high-risk subgroup analyses showed nonsignificant trends that seem to be in good agreement with the results of the National Lung Screening Trial. Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT00496977).

Indexed as

AdenocarcinomaAgedCarcinoma, Non-Small-Cell LungCarcinoma, Squamous CellComorbidityDenmarkEarly Detection of CancerFemaleHumansLungLung NeoplasmsMaleMiddle AgedProportional Hazards ModelsPulmonary Disease, Chronic ObstructiveRisk Assessmentchronic obstructive pulmonary diseasecomputed tomographylung cancerscreening

Identifiers

PMID26485620
OpenAlexW1763317605

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

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.