Trial reportEuropean radiology2016
Low-dose computed tomography for lung cancer screening: comparison of performance between annual and biennial screen.
Trial report in European radiology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05432739 (Nodule IMmunophenotyping Biomarker for Lung Cancer Early Diagnosis Study), which is not on this map. Cited by 60 papers, 5 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.
Nodule IMmunophenotyping Biomarker for Lung Cancer Early Diagnosis Study
Who cites it
60 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Lung Cancer Screening With Low-Dose Computed Tomography.Deutsches Arzteblatt international · 2023Pooled it
- Impact of low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) screening on lung cancer-related mortality.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2022Pooled it
- Guideline
- Guideline
- Lung Cancer Screening with Low-Dose CT: a Meta-Analysis.Journal of general internal medicine · 2020Pooled it
- Ten-year results of the Multicentric Italian Lung Detection trial demonstrate the safety and efficacy of biennial lung cancer screening.European journal of cancer (Oxford, England : 1990) · 2019Trial
- Prolonged lung cancer screening reduced 10-year mortality in the MILD trial: new confirmation of lung cancer screening efficacy.Annals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology · 2019Trial
- Lung Cancer Survivorship: Challenges and Care Needs.Cancers · 2026Review
- Over- and underscreening for lung cancer.Translational lung cancer research · 2026Review
- [Expert Consensus on Precision Management of Pulmonary Nodules (2026 Version)].Zhongguo fei ai za zhi = Chinese journal of lung cancer · 2026Article
- Rationale for the Nodule Management Protocol of the Australian National Lung Cancer Screening Program.Journal of medical imaging and radiation oncology · 2026Review
- Analysis of tracheal, bronchial, and lung cancer trends in 204 countries from 1990 to 2021 and the impact of COVID-19.Respiratory research · 2025Article
- Structured narrative review on lung cancer screening: current evidence, clinical practice implications and implementation insights from a multidisciplinary task force and patient representatives.European respiratory review : an official journal of the European Respiratory Society · 2025Review
- Lessons Learned From International Lung Cancer Screening Trials; People at Risk Deserve Screening for Early Detection.Respirology (Carlton, Vic.) · 2025Review
- Model-Based Cost-Utility Analysis of Combined Low-Dose Computed Tomography Screening for Lung Cancer, Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease, and Cardiovascular Disease.JTO clinical and research reports · 2025Article
- Article
- Occult metastases and survival of lung cancer by clinical diagnosis and CT screening: A simulation study.PloS one · 2025Article
- Benchmarking lung cancer screening programmes with adaptive screening frequency against the optimal screening schedules derived from the ENGAGE framework: a comparative microsimulation study.EClinicalMedicine · 2024Article
- How will lung cancer screening and lung nodule management change the diagnostic and surgical lung cancer landscape?European respiratory review : an official journal of the European Respiratory Society · 2024Review
- Study rationale and design of the PEOPLHE trial.La Radiologia medica · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo compare the performance metrics of two different strategies of lung cancer screening by low-dose computed tomography (LDCT), namely, annual (LDCT1) or biennial (LDCT2) screen.
methodsRecall rate, detection rate, interval cancers, sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values (PPV and NPV, respectively) were compared between LDCT1 and LDCT2 arms of the MILD trial over the first seven (T0-T6; median follow-up 7.3 years) and four rounds (T0-T3; median follow-up 7.3 years), respectively.
results1152 LDCT1 and 1151 LDCT2 participants underwent a total of 6893 and 4715 LDCT scans, respectively. The overall recall rate was higher in LDCT2 arm (6.97 %) than in LDCT1 arm (5.81 %) (p = 0.01), which was counterbalanced by the overall lower number of LDCT scans. No difference was observed for the overall detection rate (0.56 % in both arms). The two LDCT arms had similar specificity (99.2 % in both arms), sensitivity (73.5 %, in LDCT2 vs. 68.5 % in LDCT1, p = 0.62), PPV (42.4 %, in LDCT2, vs. 40.6 %, in LDCT1, p = 0.83) and NPV (99.8 %, in LDCT2 vs. 99.7 %, in LDCT1, p = 0.71).
conclusionBiennial screen may save about one third of LDCT scans with similar performance indicators as compared to annual screening. KEY POINTS: • Biennial LDCT screening may be as efficient as the annual screening. • Annual and biennial LDCT screening have similar frequency of interval lung cancers. • Biennial screening may save about one third of LDCT scans.
Indexed as
Identifiers
26868497What 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.