ArticleJournal of thoracic disease2021
Comparison of National Comprehensive Cancer Network and European Position Statement protocols for nodule management in low-dose computed tomography lung cancer screening in a general Chinese population.
Article in Journal of thoracic disease, 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.
- Machine learning predicts severe adverse events and salvage success of CT-guided lung biopsy after nondiagnostic transbronchial lung biopsy.European radiology · 2026Article
- Successful Application of Artificial Intelligence-Assisted Analysis of Invasive Pulmonary Adenocarcinoma Less Than 6 mm in Size: A Case Report and Literature Review.The clinical respiratory journal · 2025Review
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLow-dose computed tomography (LDCT) lung cancer screening often refers individuals to unnecessary examinations. This study aims to compare the European Position Statement (EUPS) and National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) protocols in management of participants at baseline screening round.
methodsLDCT lung cancer screening was prospectively performed in a Chinese asymptomatic population aged 40-74 years. A total of 1,000 consecutive baseline LDCT scans were read twice independently. All screen-detected lung nodules by the first reader were included. The first reader manually measured the diameter of lung nodules (NCCN protocol), and the second reader semi-automatically measured the volume and diameter (EUPS volume and diameter protocols). The protocols were used to classify the participants into three management groups: next screening round, short-term repeat LDCT scan and referral to a pulmonologist. Groups were compared using Wilcoxon test for paired samples. Number of lung cancers by protocols was provided.
resultsOf the 1,000 participants (61.4±6.7 years old), 168 lung nodules in 124 participants were visually detected and manually measured in the first reading, and re-measured semi-automatically. Applying the NCCN protocol, EUPS volume and diameter protocol, the proportion of referrals among all participants was 0.6%, 1.9%, and 1.4%, respectively. The proportion of short-term repeat scans was 4.5%, 9.7% and 4.5%, respectively. Among the 10 lung cancer patients, one would have been diagnosed earlier if the EUPS volume protocol would have been followed.
conclusionsIn a first round screening in a Chinese general population, the lower threshold for referral in the EUPS protocol as compared to the NCCN protocol, leads to more referrals to a pulmonologist, with the potential of earlier cancer diagnosis. The EUPS volume protocol recommends fewer participants to short-term repeat LDCT scan than the EUPS diameter protocol. Follow-up studies should show the impact of both protocols on (interval) cancer diagnosis.
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.