ArticleAsian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP2021
How Well Have Projected Lung Cancer Rates Predicted the Actual Observed Rates?
Article in Asian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Evaluation and forecasting methods to estimate number of patients with non-Hodgkin lymphoma: a systematic literature review.Population health metrics · 2025Pooled it
- Risk Factors for the Diagnosis of Lung Cancer in Poland: A Large-Scale, Population-Based Case-Control Study.Asian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWhile many past studies have constructed projections of future lung cancer rates, little is known about their consistency with the corresponding observed data for the time period covered by the projections. The aim of this study was to assess the agreement between previously published lung cancer incidence and/or mortality rate projections and observed rates.
methodsPublished studies were included in the current study if they projected future lung cancer rates for at least 10 years beyond the period for which rates were used to obtain the projections, and if more recent observed rates for comparison covered a minimum of 10 years from the beginning of the projection period. Projected lung cancer incidence and/or mortality rates from these included studies were extracted from the publications. Observed rates were obtained from cancer registries or the World Health Organization's Mortality Database. Agreement between projected and observed rates was assessed and the relative difference (RD) for each projected rate was calculated as the percentage difference between the projected and observed rates.
resultsA total of 59 projections reported in 14 studies were included. Nine studies provided projections for 20 years or more. RDs were higher for those projections in which the lung cancer rates peaked during the projection period, and RDs increased substantially with the length of the projection period. When lung cancer rates peaked during the projection period, methods incorporating smoking data were generally more successful at predicting the trend reversal than those which did not incorporate smoking data. Mean RDs for 15-year projections comparing methods with or without smoking data were 12.7% versus 48.0% for males and 8.2% versus 42.3% for females.
conclusionsThe agreement between projected and observed lung cancer rates is dependent on the trends in the observed rates and characteristics of the population, particularly trends in smoking.
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.