Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32194774›Full record

ReviewBreathe (Sheffield, England)2020

Overdiagnosis of lung cancer with low-dose computed tomography screening: meta-analysis of the randomised clinical trials.

John Brodersen, Theis Voss, Frederik Martiny, Volkert Siersma, Alexandra Barratt, Bruno Heleno

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Breathe (Sheffield, England), 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 46 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
46citing papers in PubMed, 7 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

46 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Lung Cancer Screening With Low-Dose Computed Tomography.Deutsches Arzteblatt international · 2023
    Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Trial
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

John BrodersenThe Section of General Practice and the Research Unit for General Practice, Dept of Public Health, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9369-3376
Theis VossThe Section of General Practice and the Research Unit for General Practice, Dept of Public Health, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4736-6950
Frederik MartinyThe Section of General Practice and the Research Unit for General Practice, Dept of Public Health, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7266-1981
Volkert SiersmaThe Section of General Practice and the Research Unit for General Practice, Dept of Public Health, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1941-2681
Alexandra BarrattSydney School of Public Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2561-3319
Bruno HelenoCEDOC, Chronic Diseases Research Centre, NOVA Medical School, Faculdade de Ciências Médicas, Universidade NOVA de Lisboa, Lisbon, Portugal.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3943-1858

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) screening for lung cancer, all three main conditions for overdiagnosis in cancer screening are present: 1) a reservoir of slowly or nongrowing lung cancer exists; 2) LDCT is a high-resolution imaging technology with the potential to identify this reservoir; and 3) eligible screening participants have a high risk of dying from causes other than lung cancer. The degree of overdiagnosis in cancer screening is most validly estimated in high-quality randomised controlled trials (RCTs), with enough follow-up time after the end of screening to avoid lead-time bias and without contamination of the control group. Nine RCTs investigating LDCT screening were identified. Two RCTs were excluded because lung cancer incidence after the end of screening was not published. Two other RCTs using active comparators were also excluded. Therefore, five RCTs were included: two trials were at low risk of bias, two of some concern and one at high risk of bias. In a meta-analysis of the two low risk of bias RCTs including 8156 healthy current or former smokers, 49% of the screen-detected cancers were overdiagnosed. There is uncertainty about this substantial degree of overdiagnosis due to unexplained heterogeneity and low precision of the summed estimate across the two trials. KEY POINTS: Nine randomised controlled trials (RCTs) on low-dose computed tomography screening were identified; five were included for meta-analysis but only two of those were at low risk of bias.In a meta-analysis of recent low risk of bias RCTs including 8156 healthy current or former smokers from developed countries, we found that 49% of the screen-detected cancers may be overdiagnosed.There is uncertainty about the degree of overdiagnosis in lung cancer screening due to unexplained heterogeneity and low precision of the point estimate.If only high-quality RCTs are included in the meta-analysis, the degree of overdiagnosis is substantial. EDUCATIONAL

aimsTo appreciate that low-dose computed tomography screening for lung cancer meets all three main conditions for overdiagnosis in cancer screening: a reservoir of indolent cancers exists in the population; the screening test is able to "tap" this reservoir by detecting biologically indolent cancers as well as biologically important cancers; and the population being screened is characterised by a relatively high competing risk of death from other causesTo learn about biases that might affect the estimates of overdiagnosis in randomised controlled trials in cancer screening.

Identifiers

PMID32194774
PMCPMC7078745

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.