Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27330355›Full record

ArticleCurrent oncology (Toronto, Ont.)2016

Implementing low-dose computed tomography screening for lung cancer in Canada: implications of alternative at-risk populations, screening frequency, and duration.

W K Evans, W M Flanagan, A B Miller, J R Goffin, S Memon, N Fitzgerald, M C Wolfson

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.), 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. The OncoSim-Breast Cancer Microsimulation Model.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2022
    Article
  5. Engaging veteran stakeholders to identify patient-centred research priorities for optimizing implementation of lung cancer screening.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2022
    Article
  6. Lung cancer screening: targeting the hard to reach-a review.Translational lung cancer research · 2021
    Review
  7. Observational
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

W K EvansMcMaster University, Hamilton, ON;
W M FlanaganStatistics Canada, Ottawa, ON;
A B MillerDalla Lana School of Public Health, Toronto, ON;
J R GoffinMcMaster University, Hamilton, ON;
S MemonCanadian Partnership Against Cancer, Toronto, ON;
N FitzgeraldCanadian Partnership Against Cancer, Toronto, ON;
M C WolfsonUniversity of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundLow-dose computed tomography (ldct) screening has been shown to reduce mortality from lung cancer; however, the optimal screening duration and "at risk" population are not known.

methodsThe Cancer Risk Management Model developed by Statistics Canada for the Canadian Partnership Against Cancer includes a lung screening module based on data from the U.S. National Lung Screening Trial (nlst). The base-case scenario reproduces nlst outcomes with high fidelity. The impact in Canada of annual screening on the number of incident cases and life-years gained, with a wider range of age and smoking history eligibility criteria and varied participation rates, was modelled to show the magnitude of clinical benefit nationally and by province. Life-years gained, costs (discounted and undiscounted), and resource requirements were also estimated.

resultsIn 2014, 1.4 million Canadians were eligible for screening according to nlst criteria. Over 10 years, screening would detect 12,500 more lung cancers than the expected 268,300 and would gain 9200 life-years. The computed tomography imaging requirement of 24,000-30,000 at program initiation would rise to between 87,000 and 113,000 by the 5th year of an annual nlst-like screening program. Costs would increase from approximately $75 million to $128 million at 10 years, and the cumulative cost nationally over 10 years would approach $1 billion, partially offset by a reduction in the costs of managing advanced lung cancer.

conclusionsModelling various ways in which ldct might be implemented provides decision-makers with estimates of the effect on clinical benefit and on resource needs that clinical trial results are unable to provide.

Indexed as

Canadalow-dose computed tomographyLung cancermodellingnlstscreening

Identifiers

PMID27330355
PMCPMC4900838

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.