Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36042989›Full record

ReviewCureus2022

Emerging Approaches to Complement Low-Dose Computerized Tomography for Lung Cancer Screening: A Narrative Review.

Bradley Maller, Tawee Tanvetyanon

Open access · diamondAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Cureus, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
0.1field-weighted citation impact, top 53% 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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
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

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Bradley MallerInternal Medicine, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, USA.
Tawee TanvetyanonThoracic Oncology, Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, USA.
Virginia Commonwealth University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Lung cancer screening by low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) can save lives. Nevertheless, the test suffers from low accuracy. Improving its accuracy will reduce unnecessary invasive procedures and allow lung cancer treatment to be delivered sooner. This review describes the principles, advantages, and disadvantages of selected emerging modalities potentially useful to improve the accuracy of LDCT. A literature search was conducted using PubMed and Google scholar for relevant publications. We identified four key emerging approaches: radiomics, breath analysis, urine test, and blood test. Radiomics, which uses a computer program to extract various radiological features from radiographic images, holds the potential to improve the accuracy of LDCT. However, to date, there remains no adequately validated system. Breath analysis and urine tests represent a noninvasive and convenient means of screening by detecting substances such as volatile organic compounds associated with lung cancer. However, the results can be confounded by diets, medications, and concurrent medical conditions. Finally, a blood test to screen for protein biomarkers or methylation profiles such as Galleri® has high specificity. However, its sensitivity is low, especially for detecting early-stage lung cancer. Furthermore, the cost for mass public use can be significant. Based on our review, blood tests may have potential for future clinical utility. Its high specificity may be useful to rule in a suspicious lung nodule as malignant, so that other additional tests can be omitted. Data from a well-designed clinical trial will be needed to understand the clinical utility of this strategy.

Indexed as

lung cancerlung cancer screeningmethylation profileradiomicsvolatolomics

Identifiers

PMID36042989
PMCPMC9410538
OpenAlexW4288035885

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.