ArticleThoracic cancer2021
Lung cancer risk following previous abnormal chest radiographs: A 27-year follow-up study of a Chinese lung screening cohort.
Article in Thoracic cancer, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Lung cancer risk following previous abnormal chest radiographs: A 27-year follow-up study of a Chinese lung screening cohort.Thoracic cancer · 2021Article
- Impact of AI Assistance on Radiologist Accuracy for Lung Nodule Detection on Chest CT.Current health sciences journalArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundChest radiograph (CXR) is still one of the most commonly used diagnostic tools for chest diseases. In this cohort study, we attempted to investigate the magnitude and temporal pattern of lung cancer risk following abnormal CXR findings.
methodsWe conducted an extended follow-up of an occupational screening cohort in Yunnan, China. The associations between abnormal CXR results from baseline screening, the first four consecutive rounds of CXR screening, all previous rounds of screening and lung cancer risk were analyzed using time-varying coefficient Cox regression model. The associations of lung cancer risk and previous CXR-screening results according to histology were also considered. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess the robustness of the previous abnormal CXR findings on subsequent lung cancer risk.
resultsAbnormal CXR findings were associated with a significantly increased lung cancer risk. This relative hazard significantly decreased over time. Compared to negative screening results, the adjusted hazard ratios (HR) of baseline abnormal CXR results, and at least one abnormal result in the first four consecutive screening rounds during the first 5 years of follow-up were 17.06 (95% CI: 11.74-24.79) and 13.77 (95%: 9.58-17.79), respectively. This significantly increased lung cancer risk continued over the next 5 years. These associations were stronger for persistent abnormal findings, and abnormal findings identified in recent screening rounds.
conclusionsThe increased risk was significant for both squamous cell carcinoma and adenocarcinoma. Although decreased over time, an increased lung cancer risk relative to abnormal CXR findings can continue for 10 years.
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.