ReviewInternational journal of cancer2021
Personalising lung cancer screening: An overview of risk-stratification opportunities and challenges.
Review in International journal of cancer, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. It is linked to 2 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 41 papers, 4 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.
Understanding Lung Cancer Related Risk Factors and Their Impact
Population Health Management Approaches to Increase Lung Cancer Screening in Community Health Centers - UG3 Pilot Clinical Trial
Who cites it
41 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Cost-Effectiveness and Budget Impact of Lung Cancer Screening: A Systematic Review.PharmacoEconomics · 2026Pooled it
- ESR Essentials: lung cancer screening with low-dose CT-practice recommendations by the European Society of Thoracic Imaging.European radiology · 2026Guideline
- Use and impact of risk-based eligibility models in low-dose computed tomography lung cancer screening: a systematic review.Public health reviews · 2026Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Evaluation of Supraglottic Jet Oxygenation and Ventilation in 105 Patients During Bronchoscopy Using the Twinstream® Microprocessor-Controlled Jet Ventilator and the Wei Nasal Jet® Tube.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2023Trial
- Article
- Cost-Effectiveness of Universal Low-Dose Computed Tomographic Lung Cancer Screening in Singapore.JAMA network open · 2026Article
- Healthcare professionals' perspectives on a population-based lung cancer screening programme in Flanders: a cross-sectional survey study.BMC health services research · 2026Article
- Eligibility and Prognostic Performance of Smoking Duration-Based Versus Pack-Year-Based U.S. National Lung Cancer Screening Criteria Across Racial and Ethnic Groups.Annals of internal medicine · 2026Article
- Second Primary Lung Cancer Associated With Family History of Lung Cancer.Cancer medicine · 2025Article
- Risk Factors Associated With Incidence of Lung Cancer in Never-Smokers: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.JTO clinical and research reports · 2025Article
- Updates in Lung Cancer Screening: A Decade of Evidence.Seminars in respiratory and critical care medicine · 2025Review
- Thoracic Malignancies: From Prevention and Diagnosis to Late Stages.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Optimal Pathways to Lung Cancer Screening in Primary Care Settings: A Scoping Review.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2024Article
- Article
- Review
- Screening for liver fibrosis: lessons from colorectal and lung cancer screening.Nature reviews. Gastroenterology & hepatology · 2024Review
- The Impact of Model Assumptions on Personalized Lung Cancer Screening Recommendations.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2024Article
- Cigarette Smoking and E-cigarette Use Induce Shared DNA Methylation Changes Linked to Carcinogenesis.Cancer research · 2024Article
- Implementation considerations for risk-tailored cancer screening in the population: A scoping review.Preventive medicine · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issuedErratum.2021
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Randomised clinical trials have shown the efficacy of computed tomography lung cancer screening, initiating discussions on whether and how to implement population-based screening programs. Due to smoking behaviour being the primary risk-factor for lung cancer and part of the criteria for determining screening eligibility, lung cancer screening is inherently risk-based. In fact, the selection of high-risk individuals has been shown to be essential in implementing lung cancer screening in a cost-effective manner. Furthermore, studies have shown that further risk-stratification may improve screening efficiency, allow personalisation of the screening interval and reduce health disparities. However, implementing risk-based lung cancer screening programs also requires overcoming a number of challenges. There are indications that risk-based approaches can negatively influence the trade-off between individual benefits and harms if not applied thoughtfully. Large-scale implementation of targeted, risk-based screening programs has been limited thus far. Consequently, questions remain on how to efficiently identify and invite high-risk individuals from the general population. Finally, while risk-based approaches may increase screening program efficiency, efficiency should be balanced with the overall impact of the screening program. In this review, we will address the opportunities and challenges in applying risk-stratification in different aspects of lung cancer screening programs, as well as the balance between screening program efficiency and impact.
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.