ReviewBMC pulmonary medicine2021
Duration of lead time in screening for lung cancer.
Review in BMC pulmonary medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Bridging Mammography and Lung Cancer Screening: Eligibility, Uptake and Potential Impact.Cancer medicine · 2026Article
- Risk of developing subsequent primary lung cancer after receiving radiation for breast cancer.JTCVS open · 2023Article
- Incidental diffuse low-grade gliomas: A systematic review and meta-analysis of treatment results with correction of lead-time and length-time biases.Neuro-oncology practice · 2023Review
- Evaluating the clinical trends and benefits of low-dose computed tomography in lung cancer patients.Cancer medicine · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundScreening for lung cancer has used chest radiography (CR), low dose computed tomography (LDCT) and sputum cytology (SC). Estimates of the lead time (LT), i.e., the time interval from detection of lung cancer by screening to the development of symptoms, have been derived from longitudinal studies of populations at risk, tumor doubling time (DT), the ratio between its prevalence at the first round of screening and its annual incidence during follow-up, and by probability modeling derived from the results of screening trials.
objectiveTo review and update the estimates of LT of lung cancer.
methodsA non-systematic search of the literature for estimates of LT and screening trials. Search of the reference sections of the retrieved papers for additional relevant studies. Calculation of LTs derived from these studies.
resultsLT since detection by CR was 0.8-1.1 years if derived from longitudinal studies; 0.6-2.1 years if derived from prevalence / incidence ratios; 0.2 years if derived from the average tumor DT; and 0.2-1.0 if derived from probability modeling. LT since detection by LDCT was 1.1-3.5 if derived from prevalence / incidence ratios; 3.9 if derived from DT; and 0.9 if derived from probability modeling. LT since detection of squamous cell cancer by SC in persons with normal CR was 1.3-1.5 if derived from prevalence/incidence ratios; and 2.1 years if derived from the DT of squamous cell cancer.
conclusionsMost estimates of the LT yield values of 0.2-1.5 years for detection by CR; of 0.9-3.5 years for detection by LDCT; and about 2 years or less for detection of squamous cell cancer by SC in persons with normal CR. The heterogeneity of the screening trials and methods of derivation may account for the variability of LT estimates.
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.