ArticleJournal of general internal medicine2020
Real-world Clinical Implementation of Lung Cancer Screening-Evaluating Processes to Improve Screening Guidelines-Concordance.
Article in Journal of general internal medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 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
25 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Lung Cancer Screening Participation Among Indigenous Peoples Worldwide: A Systematic Review of Challenges and Opportunities.Health promotion journal of Australia : official journal of Australian Association of Health Promotion Professionals · 2025Pooled it
- The prevalence of comorbidity in the lung cancer screening population: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of medical screening · 2023Pooled it
- Beyond Screening Populations: Context-Dependent Performance of Lung Cancer Risk Assessment Strategies in a Diagnostically Enriched Cohort.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Incidence and mortality trends after introduction of lung cancer screening in a community-based healthcare system.Cancer epidemiology · 2026Article
- Article
- Article
- Lessons Learned From International Lung Cancer Screening Trials; People at Risk Deserve Screening for Early Detection.Respirology (Carlton, Vic.) · 2025Review
- Comparative analysis of tracheal, bronchus, and lung cancer burden trends between China and the global population (1990-2021).Journal of thoracic disease · 2025Article
- Positive Screens Are More Likely in a National Lung Cancer Screening Registry Than the National Lung Screening Trial.Journal of the American College of Radiology : JACR · 2025Article
- The feasibility and cost-effectiveness of implementing mobile low-dose computed tomography with an AI-based diagnostic system in underserved populations.BMC cancer · 2025Article
- Burden of Comorbid Conditions Among Individuals Screened for Lung Cancer.JAMA health forum · 2025Article
- Empowering minoritized Alabamians screened for lung cancer-The Alabama Lung Cancer Awareness Screening and Education (ALCASE) project.Cancer medicine · 2024Article
- The Benefits and Harms of Lung Cancer Screening in Individuals With Comorbidities.JTO clinical and research reports · 2024Article
- Development of an Electronic Health Record-Based Algorithm for Predicting Lung Cancer Screening Eligibility in the Population-Based Research to Optimize the Screening Process Lung Research Consortium.JCO clinical cancer informatics · 2023Article
- Risk factors and prognostic nomogram for patients with second primary cancers after lung cancer using classical statistics and machine learning.Clinical and experimental medicine · 2023Article
- A Closer Look-Who Are We Screening for Lung Cancer?Mayo Clinic proceedings. Innovations, quality & outcomes · 2023Article
- Stage Migration and Lung Cancer Incidence After Initiation of Low-Dose Computed Tomography Screening.Journal of thoracic oncology : official publication of the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer · 2022Article
- Lung Cancer Screening in Individuals With and Without Lung-Related Comorbidities.JAMA network open · 2022Article
- Article
- Assessment and Counseling Gaps Among Former Smokers Eligible for Lung Cancer Screening in US Adults : A Cross-Sectional Analysis of National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys (NHANES), 2013-2018.Journal of general internal medicine · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundLung cancer screening (LCS) requires complex processes to identify eligible patients, provide appropriate follow-up, and manage findings. It is unclear whether LCS in real-world clinical settings will realize the same benefits as the National Lung Screening Trial (NLST).
objectiveTo evaluate the impact of process modifications on compliance with LCS guidelines during LCS program implementation, and to compare patient characteristics and outcomes with those in NLST.
designRetrospective cohort study.
settingKaiser Permanente Colorado (KPCO), a non-profit integrated healthcare system. PATIENTS: A total of 3375 patients who underwent a baseline lung cancer screening low-dose computed tomography (S-LDCT) scan between May 2014 and June 2017. MEASUREMENTS: Among those receiving an S-LDCT, proportion who met guidelines-based LCS eligibility criteria before and after LCS process modifications, differences in patient characteristics and outcomes between KPCO LCS patients and the NLST cohort, and factors associated with a positive screen.
resultsAfter modifying LCS eligibility confirmation processes, patients receiving S-LDCT who met guidelines-based LCS eligibility criteria increased from 45.6 to 92.7% (P < 0.001). Prior to changes, patients were older (68 vs. 67 years; P = 0.001), less likely to be current smokers (51.3% vs. 52.5%; P < 0.001), and less likely to have a ≥ 30-pack-year smoking history (50.0% vs. 95.3%; P < 0.001). Compared with NLST participants, KPCO LCS patients were older (67 vs. 60 years; P < 0.001), more likely to currently smoke (52.3% vs. 48.1%; P < 0.001), and more likely to have pulmonary disease. Among those with a positive baseline S-LDCT, the lung cancer detection rate was higher at KPCO (9.4% vs. 3.8%; P < 0.001) and was positively associated with prior pulmonary disease.
conclusionAdherence to LCS guidelines requires eligibility confirmation procedures. Among those with a positive baseline S-LDCT, comorbidity burden and lung cancer detection rates were notably higher than in NLST, suggesting that the study of long-term outcomes in patients undergoing LCS in real-world clinical settings is warranted.
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.