ArticleEuropean radiology2018
Baseline and annual repeat rounds of screening: implications for optimal regimens of screening.
Article in European radiology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 19 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
19 citing papers in PubMed.
- A meta-learning-based robust federated learning for diagnosing lung adenocarcinoma and tuberculosis granulomas.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Article
- Inter-observer consistency on subsolid nodule follow-up recommendation based on National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines in low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) lung cancer screening.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2024Article
- Surveillance of subsolid nodules avoids unnecessary resections in lung cancer screening: long-term results of the prospective BioMILD trial.ERJ open research · 2024Article
- Comparison of lung cancer occurring in fibrotic versus non-fibrotic lung on chest CT.Journal of translational medicine · 2024Article
- A 20-year Follow-up of the International Early Lung Cancer Action Program (I-ELCAP).Radiology · 2023Article
- Article
- Limitations of molecular testing in combination with computerized tomographic for lung cancer screening.Nature communications · 2022Article
- Associations of systemic inflammation markers with identification of pulmonary nodule and incident lung cancer in Chinese population.Cancer medicine · 2022Article
- A brain-like classification method for computed tomography images based on adaptive feature matching dual-source domain heterogeneous transfer learning.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2022Article
- Interobserver variability in Lung CT Screening Reporting and Data System categorisation in subsolid nodule-enriched lung cancer screening CTs.European radiology · 2021Article
- Implementation of low-dose CT screening in two different health care systems: Mount Sinai Healthcare System and Phoenix VA Health Care System.Translational lung cancer research · 2021Review
- Duration of lead time in screening for lung cancer.BMC pulmonary medicine · 2021Review
- The Regimen of Computed Tomography Screening for Lung Cancer: Lessons Learned Over 25 Years From the International Early Lung Cancer Action Program.Journal of thoracic imaging · 2021Article
- Solitary solid pulmonary nodules: a CT-based deep learning nomogram helps differentiate tuberculosis granulomas from lung adenocarcinomas.European radiology · 2020Article
- Recommendations for Implementing Lung Cancer Screening with Low-Dose Computed Tomography in Europe.Cancers · 2020Review
- The growth feature and its diagnostic value for benign and malignant pulmonary nodules met in routine clinical practice.Journal of thoracic disease · 2020Article
- CT screening for lung cancer: comparison of three baseline screening protocols.European radiology · 2019Article
- A population-based cohort study to evaluate the effectiveness of lung cancer screening using low-dose CT in Hitachi city, Japan.Japanese journal of clinical oncology · 2019Article
- The narrow path to organized LDCT lung cancer screening programs in Europe.Journal of thoracic disease · 2018Review
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesDifferences in results of baseline and subsequent annual repeat rounds provide important information for optimising the regimen of screening.
methodsA prospective cohort study of 65,374 was reviewed to examine the frequency/percentages of the largest noncalcified nodule (NCN), lung cancer cell types and Kaplan-Meier (K-M) survival rates, separately for baseline and annual rounds.
resultsOf 65,374 baseline screenings, NCNs were identified in 28,279 (43.3%); lung cancer in 737 (1.1%). Of 74,482 annual repeat screenings, new NCNs were identified in 4959 (7%); lung cancer in 179 (0.24%). Only adenocarcinoma was diagnosed in subsolid NCNs. Percentages of lung cancers by cell type were significantly different (p < 0.0001) in the baseline round compared with annual rounds, reflecting length bias, as were the ratios, reflecting lead times. Long-term K-M survival rate was 100% for typical carcinoids and for adenocarcinomas manifesting as subsolid NCNs; 85% (95% CI 81-89%) for adenocarcinoma, 74% (95% CI 63-85%) for squamous cell, 48% (95% CI 34-62%) for small cell. The rank ordering by lead time was the same as the rank ordering by survival rates.
conclusionsThe significant differences in the frequency of NCNs and frequency and aggressiveness of diagnosed cancers in baseline and annual repeat need to be recognised for an optimal regimen of screening. KEY POINTS: • Lung cancer aggressiveness varies considerably by cell type and nodule consistency. • Kaplan-Meier survival rates varied by cell type between 100% and 48%. • The percentages of lung cancers by cell type in screening rounds reflect screening biases. • Rank ordering by cell type survival is consistent with that by lead times. • Empirical evidence provides critical information for the regimen of screening.
Indexed as
Identifiers
28983713What 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.