ArticleLung cancer (Amsterdam, Netherlands)2023
Long-term outcomes of lung cancer screening in males and females.
Article in Lung cancer (Amsterdam, Netherlands), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Why Women Appear to Have Better Outcomes When Undergoing Screening for Lung Cancer.Annals of the American Thoracic Society · 2025Trial
- Clinical implications of coronary artery calcification in lung cancer screening populations with interstitial lung abnormalities: a retrospective cohort study.European radiology · 2026Article
- Strategies for sustainable lung cancer screening: a multi-faceted perspective to long-term surveillance in SOLACE.Insights into imaging · 2026Article
- Prognostication and clinical opportunities with AI for coronary artery calcium: a scoping review.BMJ digital health & AI · 2026Article
- A Thorough Review of the Clinical Applications of Artificial Intelligence in Lung Cancer.Cancers · 2025Review
- Relationship of tobacco smoking to cause-specific mortality: contemporary estimates from Australia.BMC medicine · 2025Article
- The pros and cons of lung cancer screening.European radiology · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThis study explored female and male overall mortality and lung cancer (LC) survival in two LC screening (LCS) populations, focusing on the predictive value of coronary artery calcification (CAC) at baseline low-dose computed tomography (LDCT).
methodsThis retrospective study analysed data of 6495 heavy smokers enrolled in the MILD and BioMILD LCS trials between 2005 and 2016. The primary objective of the study was to assess sex differences in all-cause mortality and LC survival. CAC scores were automatically calculated on LDCT images by a validated artificial intelligence (AI) software. Sex differences in 12-year cause-specific mortality rates were stratified by age, pack-years and CAC score.
resultsThe study included 2368 females and 4127 males. The 12-year all-cause mortality rates were 4.1 % in females and 7.7 % in males (p < 0.0001), and median CAC score was 8.7 vs. 41 respectively (p < 0.0001). All-cause mortality increased with rising CAC scores (log-rank test, p < 0.0001) for both sexes. Although LC incidence was not different between the two sexes, females had lower rates of 12-year LC mortality (1.0 % vs. 1.9 %, p = 0.0052), and better LC survival from diagnosis (72.3 % vs. 51.7 %; p = 0.0005), with a similar proportion of stage I (58.1 % vs. 51.2 %, p = 0.2782).
conclusionsOur findings demonstrate that female LCS participants had lower rates of all-cause mortality at 12 years and better LC survival than their male counterparts, with similar LC incidence rates and stage at diagnosis. The lower CAC burden observed in women at all ages might contribute to explain their lower rates of all-cause mortality and better LC survival.
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.