SynthesisAnnals of family medicine2020
Cancer-Specific Mortality, All-Cause Mortality, and Overdiagnosis in Lung Cancer Screening Trials: A Meta-Analysis.
Synthesis in Annals of family medicine, 2020. 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 27 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
27 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 48 citations in OpenAlex.
- An umbrella review of systematic evidence on the Low Dose Computed Tomography (LDCT) for lung cancer screening.Future oncology (London, England) · 2025Pooled it
- Lung cancer screening primer: Key information for primary care providers.Canadian family physician Medecin de famille canadien · 2021Trial
- [Controversies surrounding lung cancer screening].Atencion primaria · 2026Article
- Comprehensive analysis of cancer and non-cancer mortality in patients with bone metastases: A population-based study.Journal of bone oncology · 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
- Lung cancer screening experiences among patients with a smoking history and primary care providers: a qualitative study.BMC cancer · 2025Article
- Low-Dose Chest CT Lung Cancer Screening for School Cafeteria Workers: A Position Paper from the Korean Society of Thoracic Radiology.Journal of the Korean Society of Radiology · 2025Article
- Evaluating Pragmatism of Lung Cancer Screening Randomized Trials with the PRECIS-2 Tool.Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine : JABFM · 2025Article
- The pros and cons of lung cancer screening.European radiology · 2025Review
- Survival assessment and pre-diagnostic risk factors for lung cancer incidence: Insights from the Golestan Cohort Study.PloS one · 2025Article
- Review
- Innovations in Early Lung Cancer Detection: Tracing the Evolution and Advancements in Screening.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Review
- Lung cancer screening provider recommendation and completion in black and White patients with a smoking history in two healthcare systems: a survey study.BMC primary care · 2024Article
- Article
- Economic Evaluation of a Novel Lung Cancer Diagnostic in a Population of Patients with a Positive Low-Dose Computed Tomography Result.Journal of health economics and outcomes research · 2024Article
- Benign-malignant classification of pulmonary nodules by low-dose spiral computerized tomography and clinical data with machine learning in opportunistic screening.Cancer medicine · 2023Article
- Racial Disparities in Adherence to Annual Lung Cancer Screening and Recommended Follow-Up Care: A Multicenter Cohort Study.Annals of the American Thoracic Society · 2022Article
- Review
- The Beneficial Effects of Physical Activity in Lung Cancer Prevention and/or Treatment.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- The Potential Role of Nutrition in Lung Cancer Establishment and Progression.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeBenefit of lung cancer screening using low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) in reducing lung cancer-specific and all-cause mortality is unclear. We undertook a meta-analysis to assess its associations with outcomes.
methodsWe searched the literature and previous systematic reviews to identify randomized controlled trials comparing LDCT screening with usual care or chest radiography. We performed meta-analysis using a random effects model. The primary outcomes were lung cancer-specific mortality, all-cause mortality, and the cumulative incidence ratio of lung cancer between screened and unscreened groups as a measure of overdiagnosis.
resultsMeta-analysis was based on 8 trials with 90,475 patients that had a low risk of bias. There was a significant reduction in lung cancer-specific mortality with LDCT screening (relative risk = 0.81; 95% CI, 0.74-0.89); the estimated absolute risk reduction was 0.4% (number needed to screen = 250). The reduction in all-cause mortality was not statistically significant (relative risk = 0.96; 95% CI, 0.92-1.01), but the absolute reduction was consistent with that for lung cancer-specific mortality (0.34%; number needed to screen = 294). In the studies with the longest duration of follow-up, the incidence of lung cancer was 25% higher in the screened group, corresponding to a 20% rate of overdiagnosis.
conclusionsThis meta-analysis showing a significant reduction in lung cancer-specific mortality, albeit with a tradeoff of likely overdiagnosis, supports recommendations to screen individuals at elevated risk for lung cancer with LDCT.
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.