ArticleThe Lancet. Oncology2022
USPSTF2013 versus PLCOm2012 lung cancer screening eligibility criteria (International Lung Screening Trial): interim analysis of a prospective cohort study.
Article in The Lancet. Oncology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 2 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 95 papers, 5 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.
Randomised Controlled Trial to Test Novel Invitation Methods and Materials Targeted to Increase Informed Uptake of Lung Cancer Screening in Individuals at High Risk of Lung Cancer
International Lung Screen Trial
Who cites it
95 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 151 citations in OpenAlex.
- Cost-Effectiveness and Budget Impact of Lung Cancer Screening: A Systematic Review.PharmacoEconomics · 2026Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Lung Cancer Screening Participation Among Indigenous Peoples Worldwide: A Systematic Review of Challenges and Opportunities.Health promotion journal of Australia : official journal of Australian Association of Health Promotion Professionals · 2025Pooled it
- Predictive performance of risk prediction models for lung cancer incidence in Western and Asian countries: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Scientific reports · 2025Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Pulmonary nodules: classification, biomarkers, signaling pathways, diseases, early diagnosis and management.Signal transduction and targeted therapy · 2026Review
- [Implementation of a national lung cancer screening in Austria : Position paper of the Austrian Radiological Society (ÖRG), the Austrian Society of Pneumology (ÖGP), the Austrian Society of General Practice and Family Medicine (ÖGAM) and the Austrian Society of Thoracic Surgery (ÖGTC)].Wiener klinische Wochenschrift · 2026Article
- Integrating Deep Learning of Low-Dose CT Imaging With Clinical Data for Lung Cancer Risk Prediction.Chest · 2026Article
- Analysis of Lung Cancer Screening Eligibility Among Patients Diagnosed With Lung Cancer: A Retrospective Cohort Study.Journal of the American College of Radiology : JACR · 2026Article
- Improving lung cancer screening diagnostic efficiency.Current opinion in pulmonary medicine · 2026Review
- Estimating Eligibility for Lung Cancer Screening in Ireland: A Dynamic Modelling Study of Smoking Trends.PharmacoEconomics - open · 2026Article
- Lung cancer risk prediction models and asbestos exposure: a validation study on the Western Australia Asbestos Review Program.Occupational and environmental medicine · 2026Article
- Brief Report: Impact of PLCOm2012 Ethnicity Model Variations on Eligibility for the Alberta Lung Cancer Screening Program.JTO clinical and research reports · 2026Article
- Implementation of the NHS England Lung Cancer Screening Programme over 5 years.Nature medicine · 2026Article
- The landscape of lung cancer screening globally: a comparison of established programs and estimates of eligibility to participate.The Lancet regional health. Western Pacific · 2026Review
- Innovative approaches for lung cancer screening and interception.Nature reviews. Clinical oncology · 2026Review
- Impact of lung cancer screening eligibility criteria on participants' characteristics and healthcare resources.International journal of cancer · 2026Article
- Lung Cancer Diagnosis Rates in Early Detection Programs in the Mississippi Delta.JAMA network open · 2026Article
- Natural Language Processing-Assisted Incidental Pulmonary Nodule Evaluation Program: Impact on Lung Cancer Outcomes.Medical sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
35 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
42 authors at 20 institutions in 5 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundLung cancer is a major health problem. CT lung screening can reduce lung cancer mortality through early diagnosis by at least 20%. Screening high-risk individuals is most effective. Retrospective analyses suggest that identifying individuals for screening by accurate prediction models is more efficient than using categorical age-smoking criteria, such as the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) criteria. This study prospectively compared the effectiveness of the USPSTF2013 and PLCOm2012 model eligibility criteria.
methodsIn this prospective cohort study, participants from the International Lung Screening Trial (ILST), aged 55-80 years, who were current or former smokers (ie, had ≥30 pack-years smoking history or ≤15 quit-years since last permanently quitting), and who met USPSTF2013 criteria or a PLCOm2012 risk threshold of at least 1·51% within 6 years of screening, were recruited from nine screening sites in Canada, Australia, Hong Kong, and the UK. After enrolment, patients were assessed with the USPSTF2013 criteria and the PLCOm2012 risk model with a threshold of at least 1·70% at 6 years. Data were collected locally and centralised. Main outcomes were the comparison of lung cancer detection rates and cumulative life expectancies in patients with lung cancer between USPSTF2013 criteria and the PLCOm2012 model. In this Article, we present data from an interim analysis. To estimate the incidence of lung cancers in individuals who were USPSTF2013-negative and had PLCOm2012 of less than 1·51% at 6 years, ever-smokers in the Prostate Lung Colorectal and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial (PLCO) who met these criteria and their lung cancer incidence were applied to the ILST sample size for the mean follow-up occurring in the ILST. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02871856. Study enrolment is almost complete.
findingsBetween June 17, 2015, and Dec 29, 2020, 5819 participants from the International Lung Screening Trial (ILST) were enrolled on the basis of meeting USPSTF2013 criteria or the PLCOm2012 risk threshold of at least 1·51% at 6 years. The same number of individuals was selected for the PLCOm2012 model as for the USPSTF2013 criteria (4540 [78%] of 5819). After a mean follow-up of 2·3 years (SD 1·0), 135 lung cancers occurred in 4540 USPSTF2013-positive participants and 162 in 4540 participants included in the PLCOm2012 of at least 1·70% at 6 years group (cancer sensitivity difference 15·8%, 95% CI 10·7-22·1%; absolute odds ratio 4·00, 95% CI 1·89-9·44; p<0·0001). Compared to USPSTF2013-positive individuals, PLCOm2012-selected participants were older (mean age 65·7 years [SD 5·9] vs 63·3 years [5·7]; p<0·0001), had more comorbidities (median 2 [IQR 1-3] vs 1 [1-2]; p<0·0001), and shorter life expectancy (13·9 years [95% CI 12·8-14·9] vs 14·8 [13·6-16·0] years). Model-based difference in cumulative life expectancies for those diagnosed with lung cancer were higher in those who had PLCOm2012 risk of at least 1·70% at 6 years than individuals who were USPSTF2013-positive (2248·6 years [95% CI 2089·6-2425·9] vs 2000·7 years [1841·2-2160·3]; difference 247·9 years, p=0·015).
interpretationPLCOm2012 appears to be more efficient than the USPSTF2013 criteria for selecting individuals to enrol into lung cancer screening programmes and should be used for identifying high-risk individuals who benefit from the inclusion in these programmes.
fundingTerry Fox Research Institute, The UBC-VGH Hospital Foundation and the BC Cancer Foundation, the Alberta Cancer Foundation, the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council, Cancer Research UK and a consortium of funders, and the Roy Castle Lung Cancer Foundation for the UK Lung Screen Uptake Trial.
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.