ArticleClinical lung cancer2016
Proportion of Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer Patients that Would Have Been Eligible for Lung Cancer Screening.
Article in Clinical lung cancer, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Racial and socioeconomic disparities in lung cancer screening in the United States: A systematic review.CA: a cancer journal for clinicians · 2021Pooled it
- Potential to improve early detection of lung cancer through expansion of focused and opportunistic screening approaches: a scoping review focusing on potential expansion of screening risk factors and adoption of artificial intelligence models.Lung cancer management · 2026Review
- Lung cancer screening in Lithuania: a cost-effectiveness analysis.Journal of comparative effectiveness research · 2026Article
- Lung cancer screening among minority groups: Identifying gaps in screening and opportunities for intervention.JTCVS open · 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundLung cancer screening is recommended for current smokers (CS) and former smokers (FS) who meet specific age and smoking criteria. We used existing criteria to estimate the proportion of non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients that would have been screening-eligible.
methodsWe identified 2030 NSCLC patients at our institution from 1994 to 2014 and recorded their cigarette smoking status and history. Using criteria from the United States Preventative Services Task Force (USPSTF) and from other organizations, we ascertained the proportions of screening-eligible patients. Associations among smoking status, gender, race/ethnicity, and insurance type were assessed using Chi-Square test.
resultsIn our cohort, 31.0% (n = 630) were CS, 43.0% (n = 873) were FS, and 26.0% (n = 527) were never smokers. There were 698 patients (34.4%) who met all USPSTF screening criteria. Among 1503 CS and FS, 77.5% (n = 1165) were between age 55 and 80 years, and 67.9% (n = 1021) had smoked ≥ 30 pack-years. Among FS, 50.4% (n = 440) had quit within 15 years of diagnosis. Median pack-years smoked was 40 (interquartile range, 20-55 pack-years). CS were more likely to meet screening criteria than FS (67.5% vs. 31.3%; P < .0001). Significant differences were found among individuals meeting criteria by gender, race/ethnicity, and insurance type.
conclusionOnly a third of patients diagnosed with NSCLC were eligible for lung cancer screening based on USPSTF criteria. FS were less likely to meet all screening criteria due to only half meeting the quit-time criterion. Additional evidence is needed to evaluate the utility of restricting screening among FS to those who quit within 15 years.
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.