Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34270968›Full record

GuidelineChest2021

Screening for Lung Cancer: CHEST Guideline and Expert Panel Report.

Peter J Mazzone, Gerard A Silvestri, Lesley H Souter, Tanner J Caverly, Jeffrey P Kanne, Hormuzd A Katki, Renda Soylemez Wiener, Frank C Detterbeck

Registry-linked trialAbstract readPractice Guideline
In one paragraph

Guideline in Chest, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07073898 (Population Health Management Approaches to Increase Lung Cancer Screening in Community Health Centers - UG3 Pilot Clinical Trial), which is not on this map. Cited by 140 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
140citing papers in PubMed, 7 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

NCT07073898 nacompletednot on this mapstarted 2025, after this paper: background citation

Population Health Management Approaches to Increase Lung Cancer Screening in Community Health Centers - UG3 Pilot Clinical Trial

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity of UtahRan2025 to 2026Enrolled65ConditionsLung CancerArmsRepeated Text Messages (TM+), Conversational Agent (CA), Educational Video, Proactive Patient Navigation (PPN), Reactive Patient Navigation (RPN)
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

140 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Brazilian Thoracic Society recommendations for the diagnosis and monitoring of asbestos-exposed individuals.Jornal brasileiro de pneumologia : publicacao oficial da Sociedade Brasileira de Pneumologia e Tisilogia · 2024
    Guideline
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Trial
  9. Effect of a Personalized Tobacco Treatment Intervention on Smoking Abstinence in Individuals Eligible for Lung Cancer Screening.Journal of thoracic oncology : official publication of the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer · 2024
    Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Improving lung cancer screening diagnostic efficiency.Current opinion in pulmonary medicine · 2026
    Review
  19. Article
  20. Article

80 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Peter J MazzoneRespiratory Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH. Electronic address: mazzonp@ccf.org.
Gerard A Silvestrithe Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC.
Lesley H SouterCHEST, Glenview, IL.
Tanner J CaverlyAnn Arbor VA Center for Clinical Management Research, Ann Arbor, MI; University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, MI.
Jeffrey P KanneUniversity of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, WI.
Hormuzd A KatkiNational Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD.
Renda Soylemez WienerCenter for Healthcare Organization & Implementation Research, VA Boston Healthcare System, Boston, MA; Boston University School of Medicine, Boston, MA.
Frank C DetterbeckYale University (F. C. Detterbeck), New Haven, CT.

Funding

Yale Clinical and Translational Science Award (U Component)UL1TR001863 · NCATS · YALE UNIVERSITY · PI John H. Krystal, LUCILA OHNO-MACHADO · 2016 to 2026
$102.9M
HSRD VA IK2 HX002246NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR001863
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundLow-dose chest CT screening for lung cancer has become a standard of care in the United States, in large part because of the results of the National Lung Screening Trial (NLST). Additional evidence supporting the net benefit of low-dose chest CT screening for lung cancer, and increased experience in minimizing the potential harms, has accumulated since the prior iteration of these guidelines. Here, we update the evidence base for the benefit, harms, and implementation of low-dose chest CT screening. We use the updated evidence base to provide recommendations where the evidence allows, and statements based on experience and expert consensus where it does not.

methodsApproved panelists reviewed previously developed key questions using the Population, Intervention, Comparator, Outcome format to address the benefit and harms of low-dose CT screening, and key areas of program implementation. A systematic literature review was conducted using MEDLINE via PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library on a quarterly basis since the time of the previous guideline publication. Reference lists from relevant retrievals were searched, and additional papers were added. Retrieved references were reviewed for relevance by two panel members. The quality of the evidence was assessed for each critical or important outcome of interest using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach. Meta-analyses were performed when enough evidence was available. Important clinical questions were addressed based on the evidence developed from the systematic literature review. Graded recommendations and ungraded statements were drafted, voted on, and revised until consensus was reached.

resultsThe systematic literature review identified 75 additional studies that informed the response to the 12 key questions that were developed. Additional clinical questions were addressed resulting in seven graded recommendations and nine ungraded consensus statements.

conclusionsEvidence suggests that low-dose CT screening for lung cancer can result in a favorable balance of benefit and harms. The selection of screen-eligible individuals, the quality of imaging and image interpretation, the management of screen-detected findings, and the effectiveness of smoking cessation interventions can impact this balance.

Indexed as

Early Detection of CancerRadiologic HealthDiagnostic Reference LevelsHumansLung NeoplasmsRisk AssessmentSmoking CessationTomography, X-Ray Computedguidelineslung cancerscreening

Identifiers

PMID34270968
PMCPMC8727886

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

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.