Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35253286›Full record

ReviewJournal of internal medicine2022

Low-dose computed tomography lung cancer screening: Clinical evidence and implementation research.

Harriet L Lancaster, Marjolein A Heuvelmans, Matthijs Oudkerk

Open access · hybridAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of internal medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 116 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
116citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
19.6field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

116 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 144 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Three-Dimensional Reconstruction and Virtual Simulation of Patient-Specific Anatomy for Procedural Planning in Thoracoscopic Segmentectomy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.European journal of cardio-thoracic surgery : official journal of the European Association for Cardio-thoracic Surgery · 2025
    Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Review

56 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

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Harriet L LancasterDepartment of Epidemiology, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-3025-9745
Marjolein A HeuvelmansDepartment of Epidemiology, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Matthijs OudkerkInstitute for Diagnostic Accuracy, Groningen, The Netherlands.
University Medical Center Groningen · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Lung cancer causes more deaths than breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer combined. Nevertheless, population-based lung cancer screening is still not considered standard practice in most countries worldwide. Early lung cancer detection leads to better survival outcomes: patients diagnosed with stage 1A lung cancer have a >75% 5-year survival rate, compared to <5% at stage 4. Low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) thorax imaging for the secondary prevention of lung cancer has been studied at length, and has been shown to significantly reduce lung cancer mortality in high-risk populations. The US National Lung Screening Trial reported a 20% overall reduction in lung cancer mortality when comparing LDCT to chest X-ray, and the Nederlands-Leuvens Longkanker Screenings Onderzoek (NELSON) trial more recently reported a 24% reduction when comparing LDCT to no screening. Hence, the focus has now shifted to implementation research. Consequently, the 4-IN-THE-LUNG-RUN consortium based in five European countries, has set up a large-scale multicenter implementation trial. Successful implementation of and accessibility to LDCT lung cancer screening are dependent on many factors, not limited to population selection, recruitment strategy, computed tomography screening frequency, lung-nodule management, participant compliance, and cost effectiveness. This review provides an overview of current evidence for LDCT lung cancer screening, and draws attention to major factors that need to be addressed to successfully implement standardized, effective, and accessible screening throughout Europe. Evidence shows that through the appropriate use of risk-prediction models and a more personalized approach to screening, efficacy could be improved. Furthermore, extending the screening interval for low-risk individuals to reduce costs and associated harms is a possibility, and through the use of volumetric-based measurement and follow-up, false positive results can be greatly reduced. Finally, smoking cessation programs could be a valuable addition to screening programs and artificial intelligence could offer a solution to the added workload pressures radiologists are facing.

Indexed as

Early Detection of CancerLung NeoplasmsArtificial IntelligenceHumansMass ScreeningMulticenter Studies as TopicTomography, X-Ray Computedearly detectionLDCTlung cancerpulmonary nodulesscreening

Identifiers

PMID35253286
PMCPMC9311401
OpenAlexW4220731986

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.