ReviewAnnals of translational medicine2016
The importance of the regimen of screening in maximizing the benefit and minimizing the harms.
Review in Annals of translational medicine, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Association of Rurality With Annual Repeat Lung Cancer Screening in the Veterans Health Administration.Journal of the American College of Radiology : JACR · 2022Article
- Assessing the predictive accuracy of lung cancer, metastases, and benign lesions using an artificial intelligence-driven computer aided diagnosis system.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2021Article
- Strategic Initiatives for Veterans with Lung Cancer.Federal practitioner : for the health care professionals of the VA, DoD, and PHS · 2020Article
- Implementing computed tomography-based lung cancer screening in the community.Journal of thoracic disease · 2016Article
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn CT screening for lung cancer, the regimen of screening is critical in diagnosing lung cancer early while limiting unnecessary tests and invasive procedures. The International Early Lung Cancer Action Program (I-ELCAP) has developed a regimen based on evidence collected in the I-ELCAP cohort of more than 70,000 participants.
methodsImportant in the development of the regimen is the recognition of the profound difference between the first, baseline round of screening and all subsequent rounds of repeat screening. For each person undergoing screening, the baseline round happens only once while repeat rounds will be performed annually for many years. This difference needs to be clearly recognized as it is these annual rounds which allow for identification of small, early, yet aggressive, lung cancers which have high cure rates despite their aggressiveness. The importance of nodule consistency and size are key factors in the regimen. The regimen needs to be continuously updated by incorporating advances in technology and knowledge.
resultsThe use of the I-ELCAP regimen reduces the workup of participants in the screening program to less than 10% in the baseline round and less than 6% in the annual repeat rounds. By use of this regimen, estimated cure rate of lung cancers diagnosed under screening is 80% or higher in both baseline and annual repeat rounds.
conclusionsThe I-ELCAP collaboration provides a new paradigm that answers the 2002 NCI call for multiple approaches to address relevant questions about screening and the Institute of Medicine (IOM) Roundtable on Evidence-based Medicine from the National Academy of Science's call for a "new clinical research paradigm that takes better advantage of data generated in the course of healthcare delivery would speed and improve the development of evidence for real-world decision making".
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.