ArticleLung cancer (Amsterdam, Netherlands)2022
Race & sex disparities related to low-dose computed tomography lung cancer screening eligibility criteria: A lung cancer cases review.
Article in Lung cancer (Amsterdam, Netherlands), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- A systematic review and meta-analysis of lung cancer risk prediction models.Acta oncologica (Stockholm, Sweden) · 2025Pooled it
- Article
- Article
- Pack-Year Smoking History: An Inadequate and Biased Measure to Determine Lung Cancer Screening Eligibility.Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology · 2024Article
- Safety net hospital risk model demonstrates stronger, population-specific applicability in characterizing lung cancer risk.Translational cancer research · 2024Article
- Expression and clinical significance of tumor necrosis factor receptor-associated factor 1 in peripheral blood of patients with advanced lung cancer.American journal of translational research · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
introductionThe United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommendations do not account for race and sex differences in lung cancer risk. We compared the sensitivity for finding lung cancer cases eligible for lung cancer screening (LCS) by USPSTF 2013 recommendations versus the PLCOm2012 model at an equivalent threshold.
methodsUsing Georgetown University Hospital tumor registry, we identified lung cancer cases (≥55 years old) between 2014 and 2018. Medical chart review collected age, sex, race, education, smoking, and clinical characteristics. We compared the percentage meeting eligibility criteria overall, and by race and sex.
resultsThe cases (N = 447) were 36.6% Black and 52.6% female. The PLCOm2012 and USPSTF 2013 criteria identified 71.4% and 45.6% of cases, respectively (p < 0.0001). This difference was consistent across race and sex sub-groups (p < 0.0001). The PLCOm2012 was more sensitive than the USPSTF in Blacks (69.9% vs. 46.6%, p < 0.0001) and in women (69.8% vs. 41.3%, p < 0.0001). The USPSTF had poor sensitivity for both race groups (Black 46.6%, White 45.9%, p = 0.886) and had lower sensitivity in women vs. men (41.3% vs. 51.4%, p = 0.032). The PLCOm2012 had higher sensitivities in women and men, and difference between sexes was not significant (69.8% vs. 72.6%, p = 0.506).
conclusionsCompared to the USPSTF 2013 recommendations, the PLCOm2012 model selected a larger proportion of lung cancer cases in all race-sex strata and removed the sex disparity observed for the USPSTF. The PLCOm2012 risk model could be used to identify those who will benefit from LCS.
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.