ArticleThe Journal of thoracic and cardiovascular surgery2024
Persistent race- and sex-based disparities in lung cancer screening eligibility.
Article in The Journal of thoracic and cardiovascular surgery, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Demographic shifts in referral to and completion of lung cancer screening after the 2021 United States Preventive Services Task Force update.Journal of thoracic disease · 2026Article
- Lung cancer screening eligibility and completion among adults diagnosed with lung cancer: retrospective analysis of 2024 National Health Interview Survey.Cancer causes & control : CCC · 2026Article
- Analysis of Lung Cancer Screening Eligibility Among Patients Diagnosed With Lung Cancer: A Retrospective Cohort Study.Journal of the American College of Radiology : JACR · 2026Article
- Trends in pulmonary embolism mortality among older adults with lung cancer in the united States, 1999-2020.Journal of thrombosis and thrombolysis · 2026Article
- Trends in cardiovascular disease mortality among older adults with co-occuring lung cancer in the United States from 1999 to 2020.BMC cancer · 2026Article
- Patients with high distressed communities index score are at risk for "no-show" to lung cancer screening appointments.JTCVS open · 2026Article
- Advancing the early detection of lung cancer: Outcomes of a surgeon-led lung nodule clinic in a distressed patient population.JTCVS open · 2026Article
- Progress and challenges of artificial intelligence in lung cancer clinical translation.NPJ precision oncology · 2025Review
- Disparities in Screening: Can Education Address Imbalance?Annals of thoracic surgery short reports · 2024Article
- Comparison of the characteristics of the population eligible for lung cancer screening under 2013 and population newly eligible under 2021 US Preventive Services Task Force recommendations.Cancer causes & control : CCC · 2024Article
- Pack-Year Smoking History: An Inadequate and Biased Measure to Determine Lung Cancer Screening Eligibility.Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum for
Authors and funding
9 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate race- and sex-based disparities in lung cancer screening eligibility under the 2013 US Preventive Services Task Force, 2021 US Preventive Services Task Force, and National Comprehensive Cancer Network lung cancer screening guidelines.
methodsParticipants in the Southern Community Cohort Study with a smoking history diagnosed with lung cancer from 2002 to 2021 were identified for analysis. Differences in age at lung cancer diagnosis and smoking characteristics were evaluated among 4 groups: Black men, Black women, White men, and White women.
resultsA total of 2011 patients with lung cancer met study inclusion criteria, of whom 968 (48.1%) were women and 1248 (62.1%) were Black. Under the 2013 guideline, Black men with lung cancer were significantly less likely to be eligible for screening when compared with White men with lung cancer (37.7% vs 62.4%; P < .001), and Black women with lung cancer were significantly less likely to be eligible for screening when compared with White women with lung cancer (27.8% vs 56.7%; P < .001). Under the 2021 guideline, 62.6% of Black and 73.8% of White men (P < .001) with lung cancer would have been eligible for screening, resulting in an 11.2 percentage point difference in screening eligibility between Black and White men. Under the 2021 guideline, 50.3% of Black and 74.9% of White (P < .001) women with lung cancer would have been eligible for screening; notably, there remained a 24.6 percentage point difference in screening eligibility between Black and White women. In multivariable-adjusted analysis, under the 2021 USPSTF guideline, Black men with lung cancer had 46% lower odds of being eligible for screening compared with White men with lung cancer (multivariable-adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.54; 95% CI, 0.39-0.76; P < .001) and Black women with lung cancer had 66% lower odds of being eligible for screening compared with White women with lung cancer (aOR, 0.34; 95% CI, 0.25-0.46; P < .001). The National Comprehensive Cancer Network guideline increased the proportion of patients with lung cancer eligible for screening in each group.
conclusionsIn this analysis of patients with lung cancer in the Southern Community Cohort Study, there remained a large gap in lung cancer screening eligibility between Black and White men and women under the 2021 US Preventive Services Task Force guideline. Only 50% of Black women and 63% of Black men diagnosed with lung cancer would have qualified for screening.
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.