Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35900734›Full record

ArticleJAMA oncology2022

Assessment of Lung Cancer Risk Among Smokers for Whom Annual Screening Is Not Recommended.

Charles Faselis, Joel A Nations, Charity J Morgan, Jared Antevil, Jeffrey M Roseman, Sijian Zhang, Gregg C Fonarow, Helen M Sheriff, Gregory D Trachiotis, Richard M Allman and 6 more

Erratum issuedOpen access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA oncology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 17 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
4.1field-weighted citation impact, top 5% 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

17 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 29 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Guideline
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Updates in Lung Cancer Screening: A Decade of Evidence.Seminars in respiratory and critical care medicine · 2025
    Review
  10. Article
  11. HBV-Induced Carcinogenesis: Mechanisms, Correlation With Viral Suppression, and Implications for Treatment.Liver international : official journal of the International Association for the Study of the Liver · 2025
    Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Machine Learning and Real-World Data to Predict Lung Cancer Risk in Routine Care.Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology · 2023
    Article
  17. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

16 authors at 6 institutions in 1 country.

Charles FaselisVeterans Affairs Medical Center, Washington, DC.
Joel A NationsVeterans Affairs Medical Center, Washington, DC.
Charity J MorganVeterans Affairs Medical Center, Washington, DC.
Jared AntevilVeterans Affairs Medical Center, Washington, DC.
Jeffrey M RosemanDepartment of Epidemiology, School of Public Health, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham.
Sijian ZhangVeterans Affairs Medical Center, Washington, DC.
Gregg C FonarowDepartment of Medicine, School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles.
Helen M SheriffVeterans Affairs Medical Center, Washington, DC.
Gregory D TrachiotisVeterans Affairs Medical Center, Washington, DC.
Richard M AllmanDepartment of Medicine, School of Medicine, George Washington University, Washington, DC.
Prakash DeedwaniaVeterans Affairs Medical Center, Washington, DC.
Qing Zeng-TrietlerVeterans Affairs Medical Center, Washington, DC.
Daniel D TaubVeterans Affairs Medical Center, Washington, DC.
Amiya A AhmedDepartment of Medicine, School of Medicine, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut.
George HowardDepartment of Biostatistics, School of Public Health, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham.
Ali AhmedVeterans Affairs Medical Center, Washington, DC.
Veterans Health Administration · USUniversity of Alabama at Birmingham · USGeorge Washington University · USUniformed Services University of the Health Sciences · USYale University · USUniversity of California, Los Angeles · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: The US Preventive Services Task Force does not recommend annual lung cancer screening with low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) for adults aged 50 to 80 years who are former smokers with 20 or more pack-years of smoking who quit 15 or more years ago or current smokers with less than 20 pack-years of smoking. Objective: To determine the risk of lung cancer in older smokers for whom LDCT screening is not recommended. Design, Settings, and Participants: This cohort study used the Cardiovascular Health Study (CHS) data sets obtained from the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute, which also sponsored the study. The CHS enrolled 5888 community-dwelling individuals aged 65 years and older in the US from June 1989 to June 1993 and collected extensive baseline data on smoking history. The current analysis was restricted to 4279 individuals free of cancer who had baseline data on pack-year smoking history and duration of smoking cessation. The current analysis was conducted from January 7, 2022, to May 25, 2022. Exposures: Current and prior tobacco use. Main Outcomes and Measures: Incident lung cancer during a median (IQR) of 13.3 (7.9-18.8) years of follow-up (range, 0 to 22.6) through December 31, 2011. A Fine-Gray subdistribution hazard model was used to estimate incidence of lung cancer in the presence of competing risk of death. Cox cause-specific hazard regression models were used to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% CIs for incident lung cancer. Results: There were 4279 CHS participants (mean [SD] age, 72.8 [5.6] years; 2450 [57.3%] women; 663 [15.5%] African American, 3585 [83.8%] White, and 31 [0.7%] of other race or ethnicity) included in the current analysis. Among the 861 nonheavy smokers (<20 pack-years), the median (IQR) pack-year smoking history was 7.6 (3.3-13.5) pack-years for the 615 former smokers with 15 or more years of smoking cessation, 10.0 (5.3-14.9) pack-years for the 146 former smokers with less than 15 years of smoking cessation, and 11.4 (7.3-14.4) pack-years for the 100 current smokers. Among the 1445 heavy smokers (20 or more pack-years), the median (IQR) pack-year smoking history was 34.8 (26.3-48.0) pack-years for the 516 former smokers with 15 or more years of smoking cessation, 48.0 (35.0-70.0) pack-years for the 497 former smokers with less than 15 years of smoking cessation, and 48.8 (31.6-57.0) pack-years for the 432 current smokers. Incident lung cancer occurred in 10 of 1973 never smokers (0.5%), 5 of 100 current smokers with less than 20 pack-years of smoking (5.0%), and 26 of 516 former smokers with 20 or more pack-years of smoking with 15 or more years of smoking cessation (5.0%). Compared with never smokers, cause-specific HRs for incident lung cancer in the 2 groups for whom LDCT is not recommended were 10.54 (95% CI, 3.60-30.83) for the current nonheavy smokers and 11.19 (95% CI, 5.40-23.21) for the former smokers with 15 or more years of smoking cessation; age, sex, and race-adjusted HRs were 10.06 (95% CI, 3.41-29.70) for the current nonheavy smokers and 10.22 (4.86-21.50) for the former smokers with 15 or more years of smoking cessation compared with never smokers. Conclusions and Relevance: The findings of this cohort study suggest that there is a high risk of lung cancer among smokers for whom LDCT screening is not recommended, suggesting that prediction models are needed to identify high-risk subsets of these smokers for screening.

Indexed as

Lung NeoplasmsSmokersAdolescentAdultAgedCohort StudiesEarly Detection of CancerFemaleHumansLungMale

Identifiers

PMID35900734
PMCPMC9335253
OpenAlexW4288432587

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.