ArticlePLoS medicine2018
Population impact of lung cancer screening in the United States: Projections from a microsimulation model.
Article in PLoS medicine, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 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
18 citing papers in PubMed, 27 citations in OpenAlex.
- Relative leukocyte telomere length and the risk of lung cancer progression in individuals with pulmonary nodules.BMC medicine · 2026Article
- The impact of adherence on colorectal cancer screening cost-effectiveness: A modeling study.PLoS medicine · 2025Article
- 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
- Natural history models for lung Cancer: A scoping review.Lung cancer (Amsterdam, Netherlands) · 2025Article
- Occult metastases and survival of lung cancer by clinical diagnosis and CT screening: A simulation study.PloS one · 2025Article
- Estimated proportion of cancer deaths not addressed by current cancer screening efforts in the United States.Cancer biomarkers : section A of Disease markers · 2025Article
- The global burden of lung cancer: current status and future trends.Nature reviews. Clinical oncology · 2023Review
- TPGS Decorated Liposomes as Multifunctional Nano-Delivery Systems.Pharmaceutical research · 2023Review
- The Predictive Value of PD-L1 Expression Level in Evaluating the Cost-Effectiveness of Atezolizumab/Pembrolizumab.Frontiers in oncology · 2022Article
- A prediction model to evaluate the pretest risk of malignancy in solitary pulmonary nodules: evidence from a large Chinese southwestern population.Journal of cancer research and clinical oncology · 2021Article
- [Research Progress on Lung Cancer Screening].Zhongguo fei ai za zhi = Chinese journal of lung cancer · 2020Review
- ESR/ERS statement paper on lung cancer screening.European radiology · 2020Review
- A Comparative Modeling Analysis of Risk-Based Lung Cancer Screening Strategies.Journal of the National Cancer Institute · 2020Article
- Treatment capacity required for full-scale implementation of lung cancer screening in the United States.Cancer · 2019Article
- Predicting the Epidemiological Dynamics of Lung Cancer in Japan.Journal of clinical medicine · 2019Article
- Article
- Prospects for cost-effective lung cancer screening using risk calculators.Translational cancer research · 2019Article
- A simulation study of the effect of lung cancer screening in China, Japan, Singapore, and South Korea.PloS one · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPrevious simulation studies estimating the impacts of lung cancer screening have ignored the changes in smoking prevalence over time in the United States. Our primary rationale was to perform, to our knowledge, the first simulation study that estimates the health outcomes of lung cancer screening with explicit modeling of smoking trends for the whole US population. METHODS/
findingsUtilizing a well-validated microsimulation model, we estimated the benefits and harms of an annual low-dose computed tomography screening scenario with a realistic screening adherence rate versus a no-screening scenario for the US population from 2016-2030. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) eligibility criteria were applied: age 55-77 years at time of screening, history of at least 30 pack-years of smoking, and current smoker or former smoker with fewer than 15 years since quitting. In the screened population, cumulative mortality reduction was projected to reach 16.98% (95% CI 16.90%-17.07%). Cumulative mortality reduction was estimated to be 3.52% (95% CI 3.50%-3.53%) for the overall study population, with annual mortality reduction peaking at 4.38% (95% CI 4.36%-4.41%) in 2021 and falling to 3.53% (95% CI 3.50%-3.56%) by 2030. Lung cancer screening would save a projected 148,484 life-years (95% CI 147,429-149,540) across the total population through 2030. There were estimated to be 9,054 (95% CI 9,011-9,098) overdiagnosed cases among the 252,429 (95% CI 251,208-253,649) screen-detected lung cancer diagnoses, yielding an overdiagnosis rate of 3.59%. The limitations of our study are that we do not explicitly model race or socioeconomic status and our model was calibrated to data from studies performed in academic centers, both of which may impact the generalizability of our results. We also exclusively model the effects of the CMS guidelines for lung cancer screening and not any other screening strategies.
conclusionsThe mortality reduction and life-years gained estimated by this study are lower than those of single birth cohort studies. Single cohort studies neglect the changing dynamics of smoking behavior across generations, whereas this study reflects the trend of decreasing smoking prevalence since the 1960s. Maximum benefit could be derived from lung cancer screening through 2021; in later years, mortality reduction due to screening will decline. If a comprehensive screening program is not implemented in the near future, the opportunity to achieve these benefits will have passed.
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.