ArticlePloS one2016
Predicting the Mortality Benefit of CT Screening for Second Lung Cancer in a High-Risk Population.
Article in PloS one, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Prediction of lung cancer risk based on age and smoking history.Computer methods and programs in biomedicine · 2022Article
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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Patients who survive an index lung cancer (ILC) after surgical resection continue to be at significant risk for a metachronous lung cancer (MLC). Indeed, this risk is much higher than the risk of developing an ILC in heavy smokers. There is currently little evidence upon which to base guidelines for screening at-risk patients for MLC, and the risk-reward tradeoffs for screening this patient population are unknown. The goal of this investigation was to estimate the maximum mortality benefit of CT screening for MLC. We developed a computational model to estimate the maximum rates of CT detection of MLC and surgical resection to be expected in a given population as a function of time after resection of an ILC. Applying the model to a hypothetical high-risk population suggests that screening for MLC within 5 years after resection of an ILC may identify only a very small number of treatable cancers. The risk of death from a potentially resectable MLC increases dramatically past this point, however, suggesting that screening after 5 years is imperative. The model also predicts a substantial detection gap for MLC that demonstrates the benefit to be gained as more sensitive screening methods are developed.
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.