Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37909874›Full record

ArticleCancer2024

Assessing the impact of increasing lung screening eligibility by relaxing the maximum years-since-quit threshold: A simulation modeling study.

Rafael Meza, Pianpian Cao, Koen de Nijs, Jihyoun Jeon, Robert A Smith, Kevin Ten Haaf, Harry de Koning

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cancer, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed
4.9field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 19 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Updates in Lung Cancer Screening: A Decade of Evidence.Seminars in respiratory and critical care medicine · 2025
    Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. The Impact of Model Assumptions on Personalized Lung Cancer Screening Recommendations.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2024
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.

Rafael MezaDepartment of Integrative Oncology, British Columbia Cancer Research Institute, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-1076-5037
Pianpian CaoDepartment of Epidemiology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA.
Koen de NijsDepartment of Public Health, Erasmus MC-University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-1451-0557
Jihyoun JeonDepartment of Epidemiology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA.
Robert A SmithEarly Cancer Detection Science Department, American Cancer Society, Atlanta, Georgia, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-3344-2238
Kevin Ten HaafDepartment of Public Health, Erasmus MC-University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Harry de KoningDepartment of Public Health, Erasmus MC-University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Erasmus MC · NLUniversity of Michigan · USAmerican Cancer Society · USUniversity of British Columbia · CA

Funding

Comparative Modeling of Lung Cancer Prevention, Early Detection and Treatment InterventionsU01CA253858 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN AT ANN ARBOR · PI DE KONING, HARRY J, HOLFORD, THEODORE R · 2020 to 2025
$8.4M
NCI NIH HHS U01 CA253858NCI NIH HHS U01CA253858
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn 2021, the US Preventive Services Task Force expanded its lung screening recommendation to include persons aged 50-80 years who had ever smoked and had at least 20 pack-years of exposure and less than 15 years since quitting (YSQ). However, studies have suggested that screening persons who formerly smoked with longer YSQ could be beneficial.

methodsThe authors used two validated lung cancer models to assess the benefits and harms of screening using various YSQ thresholds (10, 15, 20, 25, 30, and no YSQ) and the age at which screening was stopped. The impact of enforcing the YSQ criterion only at entry, but not at exit, also was evaluated. Outcomes included the number of screens, the percentage ever screened, screening benefits (lung cancer deaths averted, life-years gained), and harms (false-positive tests, overdiagnosed cases, radiation-induced lung cancer deaths). Sensitivity analyses were conducted to evaluate the effect of restricting screening to those who had at least 5 years of life expectancy.

resultsAs the YSQ criterion was relaxed, the number of screens and the benefits and harms of screening increased. Raising the age at which to stop screening age resulted in additional benefits but with more overdiagnosis, as expected, because screening among those older than 80 years increased. Limiting screening to those who had at least 5 years of life expectancy would maintain most of the benefits while considerably reducing the harms.

conclusionsExpanding screening to persons who formerly smoked and have greater than 15 YSQ would result in considerable increases in deaths averted and life-years gained. Although additional harms would occur, these could be moderated by ensuring that screening is restricted to only those with reasonable life expectancy.

Indexed as

Lung NeoplasmsMass ScreeningEarly Detection of CancerHumansLungThoraxearly detection of cancerlung neoplasmsscreeningsmoking

Identifiers

PMID37909874
PMCPMC11188688
OpenAlexW4388127967

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.