ArticleJournal of the National Cancer Institute2020
Disparities of National Lung Cancer Screening Guidelines in the US Population.
Article in Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 39 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
39 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 62 citations in OpenAlex.
- Acceptability and perceptions of personalised risk-based cancer screening among health-care professionals and the general public: a systematic review and meta-analysis.The Lancet. Public health · 2025Pooled it
- Racial and socioeconomic disparities in lung cancer screening in the United States: A systematic review.CA: a cancer journal for clinicians · 2021Pooled it
- Demographic shifts in referral to and completion of lung cancer screening after the 2021 United States Preventive Services Task Force update.Journal of thoracic disease · 2026Article
- Hallmarks of lung cancer driven by inhalable particulate matter: From cell-intrinsic oncogenic traits to microenvironment remodeling.Innovation (Cambridge (Mass.)) · 2026Review
- Analysis of Lung Cancer Screening Eligibility Among Patients Diagnosed With Lung Cancer: A Retrospective Cohort Study.Journal of the American College of Radiology : JACR · 2026Article
- Absolute and relative socioeconomic inequalities in cancer screening participation among adults aged 40-74 years in South Korea: a repeated cross-sectional study.BMC public health · 2026Article
- Age-Based Screening for Lung Cancer Surveillance in the US.JAMA network open · 2025Article
- Differences in lung cancer screening outcomes and follow-up by patient, provider and place-based characteristics in Missouri and Illinois: A cross-sectional study.Research square · 2025Article
- Lung Cancer Screening by Nativity Among Latino Community Health Center Patients.Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine : JABFM · 2025Article
- Lung Cancer Screening in the Incarcerated Population Through a Community Imaging Partnership.Journal of correctional health care : the official journal of the National Commission on Correctional Health Care · 2025Article
- Targeted lung cancer screening in the age of immunotherapies and targeted therapies - an economic evaluation for Australia.The Lancet regional health. Western Pacific · 2024Article
- The potential high-risk population for lung cancer screening: determination of initial screening age and heterogeneity in histology and sex.Translational lung cancer research · 2024Article
- Comparison of the characteristics of the population eligible for lung cancer screening under 2013 and population newly eligible under 2021 US Preventive Services Task Force recommendations.Cancer causes & control : CCC · 2024Article
- University of Pennsylvania Telehealth Research Center of Excellence.Journal of the National Cancer Institute. Monographs · 2024Article
- Review
- Program-Based Lung Cancer Care: A Prospective Observational Tumor Registry Linkage Study.JTO clinical and research reports · 2024Article
- Lung Cancer Screening in Brazil Comparing the 2013 and 2021 USPSTF Guidelines.JAMA network open · 2023Article
- Data gaps and opportunities for modeling cancer health equity.Journal of the National Cancer Institute. Monographs · 2023Article
- Opportunities, challenges, and future directions for simulation modeling the effects of structural racism on cancer mortality in the United States: a scoping review.Journal of the National Cancer Institute. Monographs · 2023Article
- Considerations for using predictive models that include race as an input variable: The case study of lung cancer screening.Journal of biomedical informatics · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 5 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundCurrent US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) lung cancer screening guidelines are based on smoking history and age (55-80 years). These guidelines may miss those at higher risk, even at lower exposures of smoking or younger ages, because of other risk factors such as race, family history, or comorbidity. In this study, we characterized the demographic and clinical profiles of those selected by risk-based screening criteria but were missed by USPSTF guidelines in younger (50-54 years) and older (71-80 years) age groups.
methodsWe used data from the National Health Interview Survey, the CISNET Smoking History Generator, and results of logistic prediction models to simulate lifetime lung cancer risk-factor data for 100 000 individuals in the 1950-1960 birth cohorts. We calculated age-specific 6-year lung cancer risk for each individual from ages 50 to 90 years using the PLCOm2012 model and evaluated age-specific screening eligibility by USPSTF guidelines and by risk-based criteria (varying thresholds between 1.3% and 2.5%).
resultsIn the 1950 birth cohort, 5.4% would have been ineligible for screening by USPSTF criteria in their younger ages but eligible based on risk-based criteria. Similarly, 10.4% of the cohort would be ineligible for screening by USPSTF in older ages. Notably, high proportions of blacks were ineligible for screening by USPSTF criteria at younger (15.6%) and older (14.2%) ages, which were statistically significantly greater than those of whites (4.8% and 10.8%, respectively; P < .001). Similar results were observed with other risk thresholds and for the 1960 cohort.
conclusionsFurther consideration is needed to incorporate comprehensive risk factors, including race and ethnicity, into lung cancer screening to reduce potential racial disparities.
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.