Trial reportAmerican journal of respiratory and critical care medicine2016
Results of the Randomized Danish Lung Cancer Screening Trial with Focus on High-Risk Profiling.
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.
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.
Screening for Lung Cancer. A Randomised Controlled Trial of Low-Dose CT-Scanning.
Nodule IMmunophenotyping Biomarker for Lung Cancer Early Diagnosis Study
Who cites it
149 citing papers in PubMed, 19 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 337 citations in OpenAlex.
- Risk prediction for lung cancer screening: a systematic review and meta-regression.European respiratory review : an official journal of the European Respiratory Society · 2026Pooled it
- Screening for lung cancer: A systematic review of overdiagnosis and its implications.Molecular oncology · 2026Pooled it
- Noncancer-Related Mortality in Randomized Clinical Trials: A Meta-Analysis.JAMA network open · 2025Pooled it
- Time to Benefit for Lung Cancer Screening: A Systematic Review and Survival Meta-Analysis.American journal of preventive medicine · 2025Pooled it
- An umbrella review of systematic evidence on the Low Dose Computed Tomography (LDCT) for lung cancer screening.Future oncology (London, England) · 2025Pooled it
- Strong association between reduction of late-stage cancers and reduction of cancer-specific mortality in meta-regression of randomized screening trials across multiple cancer types.Journal of medical screening · 2024Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Lung Cancer Screening With Low-Dose Computed Tomography.Deutsches Arzteblatt international · 2023Pooled it
- The prevalence of comorbidity in the lung cancer screening population: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of medical screening · 2023Pooled it
- Impact of Interstitial Lung Abnormalities on Disease Expression and Outcomes in COPD or Emphysema: A Systematic Review.International journal of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease · 2023Pooled it
- The influence of postscreening follow-up time and participant characteristics on estimates of overdiagnosis from lung cancer screening trials.International journal of cancer · 2022Pooled it
- Impact of low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) screening on lung cancer-related mortality.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2022Pooled it
- Guideline
- Guideline
- Cancer-Specific Mortality, All-Cause Mortality, and Overdiagnosis in Lung Cancer Screening Trials: A Meta-Analysis.Annals of family medicine · 2020Pooled it
- Lung Cancer Screening with Low-Dose CT: a Meta-Analysis.Journal of general internal medicine · 2020Pooled it
- Effects of low-dose computed tomography on lung cancer screening: a systematic review, meta-analysis, and trial sequential analysis.BMC pulmonary medicine · 2019Pooled it
- Lung Cancer Screening, Version 3.2018, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology.Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network : JNCCN · 2018Guideline
- 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 · 2017Guideline
- A comparative analysis of heterogeneity in lung cancer screening effectiveness in two randomised controlled trials.Nature communications · 2025Trial
89 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
16 authors at 7 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.