ArticleTranslational lung cancer research2023
Assessing how lung cancer screening guidelines contribute to racial disparities in screening access.
Article in Translational lung cancer research, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Are current lung cancer screening guidelines and programs racially biased?Translational lung cancer research · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Lung cancer (LC) is the leading cause of cancer-related deaths in the United States (U.S.), with non-White people who smoke often bearing the burden of the highest rate of LC mortality. This is often due to later stage diagnoses, leading to poor prognosis and outcomes. We assess here how the eligibility criteria for LC screening set by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) could contribute to racial disparities in screening access. Methods: This paper analyzes data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES), an annual survey conducted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) that gathers health and nutrition data from a representative sample of the U.S. population. After excluding those who were ineligible for LC screening, the final cohort of participants was 5,001, which consisted of 2,669 people who formerly smoked and 2,332 people who currently smoke. Results: Out of 608 participants who were eligible for LC screening, 77.5% were non-Hispanic White (NHW) and 8.7% were non-Hispanic Black (NHB) participants versus 69.4% and 10.8% among 4,393 ineligible participants. Age, pack-years, and age along with pack-years were the most frequent reasons for ineligibility. LC screening ineligible NHW participants were statistically significantly older and had higher mean pack-years than the other racial and ethnic groups. NHB participants among the ineligible group had higher urinary cotinine levels compared to NHW participants. Conclusions: This paper underscores the need for more individualized risk estimates when determining eligibility for LC screening, which could include biomarkers of smoking exposure. The analysis shows that current screening criteria, which rely solely on factors such as age and pack years, contribute to LC racial disparities.
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.