ArticleCancer causes & control : CCC2021
Adherence to annual lung cancer screening with low-dose CT scan in a diverse population.
Article in Cancer causes & control : CCC, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers, 3 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
27 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Pooled it
- Facilitators and Barriers to Lung Cancer Screening during Long COVID: A Global Systematic Review and Meta-Study Synthesis of Qualitative Research.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2024Pooled it
- Performance of Lung-RADS in different target populations: a systematic review and meta-analysis.European radiology · 2024Pooled it
- Recruitment strategies and outcomes in lung cancer screening programmes: a scoping review.European radiology · 2026Article
- Improving lung cancer screening diagnostic efficiency.Current opinion in pulmonary medicine · 2026Review
- Patient and Healthcare Provider Barriers in the LDCT Lung Cancer Screening Continuum.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Updates in Lung Cancer Screening: A Decade of Evidence.Seminars in respiratory and critical care medicine · 2025Review
- Performance comparison of four published lung cancer prediction models applied to a cohort from the National Lung Screening Trial.Translational lung cancer research · 2025Article
- "They Just Don't Get Around to It": Clinician Perspectives on Lung Cancer Screening and Racial Disparities Among Veterans.CHEST pulmonary · 2025Article
- Novel Platforms of Education to Engage Black and African Americans in Lung Cancer Screening.AJPM focus · 2025Article
- Dismal adherence to lung cancer screening in a diverse urban population.The Journal of thoracic and cardiovascular surgery · 2025Article
- Adherence to Annual Lung Cancer Screening and Rates of Cancer Diagnosis.JAMA network open · 2025Article
- Pack-Year Smoking History: An Inadequate and Biased Measure to Determine Lung Cancer Screening Eligibility.Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology · 2024Article
- HUNCHEST-II contributes to a shift to earlier-stage lung cancer detection: final results of a nationwide screening program.European radiology · 2024Article
- A Rapid Review of Interventions to Improve Care for People Who Are Medically Underserved with Multiple Sclerosis, Diabetic Retinopathy, and Lung Cancer.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2024Review
- Death by a thousand delays.JTCVS open · 2024Article
- The Philadelphia Lung Cancer Learning Community: a multi-health-system, citywide approach to lung cancer screening.JNCI cancer spectrum · 2023Article
- Quantification of epicardial fat volume using low-dose cardiac scan in patients with low calcium score.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2023Article
- A predictive model for lung cancer screening nonadherence in a community setting health-care network.JNCI cancer spectrum · 2023Article
- Disparities in thoracic surgical oncology.Journal of surgical oncology · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeOur aim was to develop a novel approach for lung cancer screening among a diverse population that integrates the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) recommended components including shared decision making (SDM), low-dose CT (LDCT), reporting of results in a standardized format, smoking cessation, and arrangement of follow-up care.
methodsBetween October of 2015 and March of 2018, we enrolled patients, gathered data on demographics, delivery of SDM, reporting of LDCT results using Lung-RADS, discussion of results, and smoking cessation counseling. We measured adherence to follow-up care, cancer diagnosis, cancer treatment, and smoking cessation at 2 years after initial LDCT.
resultsWe enrolled 505 patients who were 57% African American, 30% Caucasian, 13% Hispanic, < 1% Asian, and 61% were active smokers. All participants participated in SDM, 88.1% used a decision aid, and 96.1% proceeded with LDCT. Of 496 completing LDCT, all received a discussion about results and follow-up recommendations. Overall, 12.9% had Lung-RADS 3 or 4, and 3.2% were diagnosed with lung cancer resulting in a false-positive rate of 10.7%. All 48 patients with positive screens but no cancer diagnosis adhered to follow-up care at 1 year, but only 35.4% adhered to recommended follow-up care at 2 years. The annual follow-up for patients with negative lung cancer screening results (Lung-RADS 1 and 2) was only 23.7% after one year and 2.8% after 2 years. All active smokers received smoking cessation counseling, but only 11% quit smoking.
conclusionThe findings show that an integrated lung cancer screening program can be safely implemented in a diverse population, but adherence to annual screening is poor.
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.