Trial reportJournal of thoracic oncology : official publication of the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer2017
Potential Impact of Including Time to First Cigarette in Risk Models for Selecting Ever-Smokers for Lung Cancer Screening.
Trial report in Journal of thoracic oncology : official publication of the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- Predictive performance of risk prediction models for lung cancer incidence in Western and Asian countries: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Scientific reports · 2025Pooled it
- A systematic review of genetic ancestry as a risk factor for incidence of non-small cell lung cancer in the US.Frontiers in genetics · 2023Pooled it
- Trial
- Structured narrative review on lung cancer screening: current evidence, clinical practice implications and implementation insights from a multidisciplinary task force and patient representatives.European respiratory review : an official journal of the European Respiratory Society · 2025Review
- Association between health literacy and the time to first cigarette among daily smokers in Zhejiang Province, China.Frontiers in public health · 2025Article
- Smoking, Lung Cancer Stage, and Prognostic Factors-Findings from the National Lung Screening Trial.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2024Article
- Association between Time to First Cigarette and Health-Related Quality of Life of Middle-Aged Male Current Smokers: A Nationwide Representative Study in Korea.Korean journal of family medicine · 2021Article
- Current advances in research in treatment and recovery: Nicotine addiction.Science advances · 2019Review
- Impact of Tobacco Dependence in Risk Prediction Models for Lung Cancer Diagnoses and Deaths.JNCI cancer spectrum · 2019Article
- Risk prediction models for lung cancer: Perspectives and dissemination.Chinese journal of cancer research = Chung-kuo yen cheng yen chiu · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
introductionSelecting individuals on the basis of model-predicted risks has been reported to improve lung cancer screening efficiency. On the basis of case-control studies, time to first cigarette (TTFC), a nicotine dependency measurement, has been a strong independent predictor of lung cancer risk. Our objective was to verify the TTFC-lung cancer association in the prospective National Lung Screening Trial and evaluate whether adding TTFC can improve lung cancer risk-prediction models.
methodsUsing Cox models, we examined associations between TTFC (≤5, 6-14, 15-29, 30-59, and ≥60 minutes) and lung cancer incidence and death in 18,729 National Lung Screening Trial participants, adjusting for smoking and other lung cancer risk factors comprehensively. We estimated 5-year individual lung cancer incidence by using models without and with TTFC and dichotomized into screening or no-screening groups based on risk thresholds of 1% and 2%. Area under the receiver operating curve values were calculated for models without and with TTFC.
resultsSmokers with a TTFC of 60 minutes or more had a much lower standardized 5-year lung cancer incidence risk-1.54% (1.52%-1.56%) for TTFC 60 minutes or more versus 4.07% (4.04%-4.09%) for TTFC 5 minutes or less-and lung cancer death risk-0.59% (0.57%-0.61%) for TTFC 60 minutes or more versus 2.26% (2.23%-2.28%) for TTFC 5 minutes or less (p trend < 0.001). Adding TTFC to the lung cancer incidence model improved the area under the receiver operating curve by 0.0079 (95% confidence interval = 0.0019-0.0138 [p = 0.0085]). Among 8994 smokers without a lung cancer diagnosis, 180 (2.00%) and 155 (1.67%) more people would be assigned to the no-screening group by adding TTFC to the model (p values for percent changes <0.001) at the 1% and 2% risk thresholds, respectively.
conclusionIncluding TTFC, which can be elicited by a single question at very low cost and noninvasively question, into risk models might better identify smokers with lower risk and could therefore be a safe, convenient tool to improve identification of those who benefit less from lung cancer screening.
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.