ArticleCancer causes & control : CCC2017
Evaluating the impact of varied compliance to lung cancer screening recommendations using a microsimulation model.
Article in Cancer causes & control : CCC, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 37 papers, 3 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
37 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 57 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pooled it
- Guideline
- Guideline
- Health Communication and Stepped Reminders Interventions for Lung Cancer Screening: A Randomized Clinical Trial.JAMA internal medicine · 2026Trial
- Trial
- Reframing computed tomography-associated cancer concerns in lifesaving screening: keeping the focus on lives saved.Lancet regional health. Americas · 2026Review
- Reducing Stigma in Lung Cancer Screening: Co-Design of a Targeted Resource for Health Professionals in Australia.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2026Article
- Implementation of a lung cancer screening program at an urban safety-net hospital: enabling solutions via stakeholder engagement.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- A pragmatic pre-post intervention trial to address adherence to lung cancer screening follow-up in community settings (the ACCELL trial): Study protocol.Contemporary clinical trials · 2025Article
- Article
- Article
- Dismal adherence to lung cancer screening in a diverse urban population.The Journal of thoracic and cardiovascular surgery · 2025Article
- Cost-effectiveness of low-dose CT screening for non-smokers with a first-degree relative history of lung cancer.BMC public health · 2025Article
- Natural history models for lung Cancer: A scoping review.Lung cancer (Amsterdam, Netherlands) · 2025Article
- Adherence to Annual Lung Cancer Screening and Rates of Cancer Diagnosis.JAMA network open · 2025Article
- The Impact of Model Assumptions on Personalized Lung Cancer Screening Recommendations.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2024Article
- A pragmatic randomized clinical trial of multilevel interventions to improve adherence to lung cancer screening (The Larch Study): Study protocol.Contemporary clinical trials · 2024Article
- Risk-based lung cancer screening in heavy smokers: a benefit-harm and cost-effectiveness modeling study.BMC medicine · 2024Article
- Veteran and Lung Cancer Screening Coordinator Perspectives on Improving Adherence to Lung Cancer Screening.CHEST pulmonary · 2023Article
- Risk Model-Based Lung Cancer Screening : A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.Annals of internal medicine · 2023Article
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
Abstract
backgroundThe US preventive services task force (USPSTF) recently recommended that individuals aged 55-80 with heavy smoking history be annually screened by low-dose computed tomography (LDCT), thereby extending the stopping age from 74 to 80 compared to the national lung screening trial (NLST) entry criterion. This decision was made partly with model-based analyses from cancer intervention and surveillance modeling network (CISNET), which assumed perfect compliance to screening.
methodsAs part of CISNET, we developed a microsimulation model for lung cancer (LC) screening and calibrated and validated it using data from NLST and the prostate, lung, colorectal, and ovarian cancer screening trial (PLCO), respectively. We evaluated population-level outcomes of the lifetime screening program recommended by the USPSTF by varying screening compliance levels.
resultsValidation using PLCO shows that our model reproduces observed PLCO outcomes, predicting 884 LC cases [Expected(E)/Observed(O) = 0.99; CI 0.92-1.06] and 563 LC deaths (E/O = 0.94 CI 0.87-1.03) in the screening arm that has an average compliance rate of 87.9% over four annual screening rounds. We predict that perfect compliance to the USPSTF recommendation saves 501 LC deaths per 100,000 persons in the 1950 U.S. birth cohort; however, assuming that compliance behaviors extrapolated and varied from PLCO reduces the number of LC deaths avoided to 258, 230, and 175 as the average compliance rate over 26 annual screening rounds changes from 100 to 46, 39, and 29%, respectively.
conclusionThe implementation of the USPSTF recommendation is expected to contribute to a reduction in LC deaths, but the magnitude of the reduction will likely be heavily influenced by screening compliance.
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.