Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36707972›Full record

ArticleCancer medicine2023

Comparison of the sensitivity of different criteria to select lung cancer patients for screening in a cohort of German patients.

Julia Walter, Diego Kauffmann-Guerrero, Thomas Muley, Martin Reck, Jan Fuge, Andreas Günther, Raphael W Majeed, Rajkumar Savai, Ina Koch, Julien Dinkel and 10 more

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Cancer medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Sex-based inequities in non-small cell lung cancer: gaps and opportunities across the care pathway.Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

20 authors.

Julia WalterDepartment of Medicine V, University Hospital, LMU Munich, Member of the German Center for Lung Research (DZL- CPCM), Munich, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-4304-6159
Diego Kauffmann-GuerreroDepartment of Medicine V, University Hospital, LMU Munich, Member of the German Center for Lung Research (DZL- CPCM), Munich, Germany.
Thomas MuleyThoraxklinik, University Hospital Heidelberg and National Center for Tumor Diseases (NCT), Heidelberg, Germany.
Martin ReckLungenClinic Grosshansdorf, ARCN, DZL, Großhansdorf, Germany.
Jan FugeBREATH - Biomedical Research in Endstage and Obstructive Lung Disease Hannover, Standort des Deutschen Zentrums für Lungenforschung, Hannover, Germany.
Andreas GüntherUniversity of Gießen-Marburg Lung Center (UGMLC), Justus Liebig University Gießen, Gießen, Germany.
Raphael W MajeedUniversity of Gießen-Marburg Lung Center (UGMLC), Justus Liebig University Gießen, Gießen, Germany.
Rajkumar SavaiUniversity of Gießen-Marburg Lung Center (UGMLC), Justus Liebig University Gießen, Gießen, Germany.
Ina KochDepartment of Thoracic Surgery, Asklepios Clinic Gauting, Comprehensive Pneumology Center Munich (CPC-M), Member of the German Center for Lung Research, München, Germany.
Julien DinkelDepartment of Radiology, Asklepios Clinic Gauting, Comprehensive Pneumology Center Munich (CPC-M), Member of the German Center for Lung Research, Munich, Germany.
Christian SchneiderDepartment of Thoracic Surgery, University Hospital, LMU Munich, Member of the German Center for Lung Research (DZL- CPCM), Munich, Germany.
Karsten SenghasThoraxklinik, University Hospital Heidelberg and National Center for Tumor Diseases (NCT), Heidelberg, Germany.
Sonja KobingerThoraxklinik, University Hospital Heidelberg and National Center for Tumor Diseases (NCT), Heidelberg, Germany.
Farkhad ManapovDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital, LMU Munich, Member of the German Center for Lung Research (DZL- CPCM), Munich, Germany.
Michael ThomasThoraxklinik, University Hospital Heidelberg and National Center for Tumor Diseases (NCT), Heidelberg, Germany.
Kathrin KahnertDepartment of Medicine V, University Hospital, LMU Munich, Member of the German Center for Lung Research (DZL- CPCM), Munich, Germany.
Hauke WinterThoraxklinik, University Hospital Heidelberg and National Center for Tumor Diseases (NCT), Heidelberg, Germany.
Jürgen BehrDepartment of Medicine V, University Hospital, LMU Munich, Member of the German Center for Lung Research (DZL- CPCM), Munich, Germany.
Martin TammemägiBrock University, St. Catharines, Ontario, Canada.
Amanda TufmanDepartment of Medicine V, University Hospital, LMU Munich, Member of the German Center for Lung Research (DZL- CPCM), Munich, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionTrials of CT-based screening for lung cancer have shown a mortality advantage for screening in North America and Europe. Before introducing a nationwide lung cancer screening program in Germany, it is important to assess the criteria used in international trials in the German population.

methodsWe used data from 3623 lung cancer patients from the data warehouse of the German Center for Lung Research (DZL). We compared the sensitivity of the following lung cancer screening criteria overall and stratified by age and histology: the National Lung Screening Trial (NLST), the Danish Lung Cancer Screening Trial (DLCST), the 2013 and 2021 US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF), and an adapted version of the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian no race model (adapted PLCOm2012) with 6-year risk thresholds of 1.0%/6 year and 1.7%/6 year.

resultsOverall, the adapted PLCOm2012 model (1%/6 years), selected the highest proportion of lung cancer patients for screening (72.4%), followed by the 2021 USPSTF (70.0%), the adapted PLCOm2012 (1.7%/6 year) (57.4%), the 2013 USPTF (57.0%), DLCST criteria (48.7%), and the NLST (48.5%). The adapted PLCOm2012 risk model (1.0%/6 year) had the highest sensitivity for all histological types except for small-cell and large-cell carcinomas (non-significant), whereas the 2021 USPTF selected a higher proportion of patients. The sensitivity levels were higher in males than in females.

conclusionUsing a risk-based selection score resulted in higher sensitivities compared to criteria using dichotomized age and smoking history. However, gender disparities were apparent in all studied eligibility criteria. In light of increasing lung cancer incidences in women, all selection criteria should be reviewed for ways to close this gender gap, especially when implementing a large-scale lung cancer screening program.

Indexed as

Lung NeoplasmsEarly Detection of CancerFemaleHumansMaleMass ScreeningRisk AssessmentSmokinghealth policylung cancer screeningNSCLCthoracic malignancy

Identifiers

PMID36707972
PMCPMC10134298

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.