ArticleEuropean radiology2019
CT screening for lung cancer: comparison of three baseline screening protocols.
Article in European radiology, 2019. 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 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 22 citations in OpenAlex.
- Design of the first national lung cancer screening program in the European Union: the Croatian Model.European radiology · 2026Article
- Heart volume on health checkup CT scans inversely correlates with pulse rate: data-driven analysis using deep-learning segmentation.Japanese journal of radiology · 2025Article
- Risk factors of bone metastasis in lung adenocarcinoma.BMC pulmonary medicine · 2025Article
- CSEA-Net: A channel-spatial enhanced attention network for lung tumor segmentation on CT images.iScience · 2025Article
- Reinforcement learning for individualized lung cancer screening schedules: A nested case-control study.Cancer medicine · 2024Article
- How will lung cancer screening and lung nodule management change the diagnostic and surgical lung cancer landscape?European respiratory review : an official journal of the European Respiratory Society · 2024Review
- [Segmentation of ground glass pulmonary nodules using full convolution residual network based on atrous spatial pyramid pooling structure and attention mechanism].Sheng wu yi xue gong cheng xue za zhi = Journal of biomedical engineering = Shengwu yixue gongchengxue zazhi · 2022Article
- Lung cancer screening by nodule volume in Lung-RADS v1.1: negative baseline CT yields potential for increased screening interval.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
- Implementation of the cloud-based computerized interpretation system in a nationwide lung cancer screening with low-dose CT: comparison with the conventional reading system.European radiology · 2021Article
- 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
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
7 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeClinical management decisions arising from the baseline round for lung cancer screening are the most challenging, as findings have accumulated over a lifetime and may be of no clinical concern. To minimize unnecessary harms and costs of workup prior to the first, annual repeat screening, workup should be limited to participants with the highest suspicion of lung cancer while still aiming to identify small, early lung cancers.
methodsWe compared recommendations for immediate, delayed (by 3 or 6 months) workup to assess growth at a malignant rate, and the resulting overall and potential biopsies of three baseline screening protocols: I-ELCAP, the two scenarios of ACR-LungRADS, and the European Consortium. For each protocol, the efficiency ratio (ER) of each recommendation was calculated by dividing the number of participants recommended for that workup by the number of resulting lung cancer diagnoses. The ER for potential biopsies was calculated, assuming that biopsies were performed on all participants recommended for immediate workup as well as those diagnosed with lung cancer after delayed workup.
resultsFor I-ELCAP, ACR-LungRADS Scenario 1, ACR-LungRADS Scenario 2, and the European consortium, the overall ER was 13.9, 18.3, 18.3, and 31.9, respectively, and for potential biopsies, it was 2.2, 8.1, 3.2, and 4.4, respectively. ER for immediate workup was 2.9, 8.6, 3.9, and 5.6, respectively, and for delayed workup was 36.1, 160.3, 57.8, and 111.9, respectively.
conclusionsI-ELCAP recommendations had the lowest ER values for overall, immediate, and delayed workup, and for potential biopsies. KEY POINTS: • Small differences in protocol thresholds can lead to many unnecessary diagnostic workups. • I-ELCAP recommendations were the most efficient for immediate and overall workup, and potential biopsies. • Definition of a "positive result" and recommendations for further workup in the baseline round needs to be continually reevaluated and updated.
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.