ArticleCancer2016
Using lessons from breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screening to inform the development of lung cancer screening programs.
Article in Cancer, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 2 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
12 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- A Systematic Review of Repeat Fecal Occult Blood Tests for Colorectal Cancer Screening.Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology · 2020Pooled it
- Lung Cancer Screening, Version 3.2018, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology.Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network : JNCCN · 2018Guideline
- Measuring the validity of survey questions on breast, cervical, colorectal, and lung cancer screening.American journal of epidemiology · 2026Article
- Longitudinal Adherence to Screening for Colorectal, Cervical, and Lung Cancer in a US Consortium.Journal of general internal medicine · 2026Article
- Cancer screening adherence among e-cigarette users in the United States.Tobacco prevention & cessation · 2025Article
- Lung cancer screening in rural primary care practices in Colorado: time for a more team-based approach?BMC primary care · 2023Article
- Implementing Decision Coaching for Lung Cancer Screening in the Low-Dose Computed Tomography Setting.JCO oncology practice · 2020Article
- Possible role of circulating tumor cells in early detection of lung cancer.Journal of thoracic disease · 2020Review
- Recommendations for lung cancer screening in Southern Africa.Journal of thoracic disease · 2019Review
- Trends in lung cancer screening in the United States, 2016-2017.Journal of thoracic disease · 2019Article
- Sex Differences in Patients With Occult Cancer After Venous Thromboembolism.Clinical and applied thrombosis/hemostasis : official journal of the International Academy of Clinical and Applied Thrombosis/Hemostasis · 2018Article
- Validation of a prognostic score for hidden cancer in unprovoked venous thromboembolism.PloS one · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Multiple advisory groups now recommend that high-risk smokers be screened for lung cancer by low-dose computed tomography. Given that the development of lung cancer screening programs will face many of the same issues that have challenged other cancer screening programs, the National Cancer Institute-funded Population-based Research Optimizing Screening through Personalized Regimens (PROSPR) consortium was used to identify lessons learned from the implementation of breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screening that should inform the introduction of lung cancer screening. These lessons include the importance of developing systems for identifying and recruiting eligible individuals in primary care, ensuring that screening centers are qualified and performance is monitored, creating clear communication standards for reporting screening results to referring physicians and patients, ensuring follow-up is available for individuals with abnormal test results, avoiding overscreening, remembering primary prevention, and leveraging advances in cancer genetics and immunology. Overall, this experience emphasizes that effective cancer screening is a multistep activity that requires robust strategies to initiate, report, follow up, and track each step as well as a dynamic and ongoing oversight process to revise current screening practices as new evidence regarding screening is created, new screening technologies are developed, new biological markers are identified, and new approaches to health care delivery are disseminated. Cancer 2016;122:1338-1342. © 2016 American Cancer Society.
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.