ReviewClinical chemistry2024
Emerging Strategies in Lung Cancer Screening: Blood and Beyond.
Review in Clinical chemistry, 2024. 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, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- A novel three-CpG signature for lung adenocarcinoma diagnosis: integrating multi-omics, machine learning, and clinical validation.Translational cancer research · 2026Article
- Circulating microRNA signatures for echinococcosis.Parasites & vectors · 2025Article
- Updates in Lung Cancer Screening: A Decade of Evidence.Seminars in respiratory and critical care medicine · 2025Review
- Thoracic Malignancies: From Prevention and Diagnosis to Late Stages.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- ASSIGN score and cancer risk in the Scottish Heart Health Extended Cohort (SHHEC) study.BJC reports · 2024Article
- Non-small-cell lung cancer.Nature reviews. Disease primers · 2024Review
- Portable Aptasensor Based on Parallel Rolling Circle Amplification for Tumor-Derived Exosomes Liquid Biopsy.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAlthough low dose computed tomography (LDCT)-based lung cancer screening (LCS) can decrease lung cancer-related mortality among high-risk individuals, it remains an imperfect and substantially underutilized process. LDCT-based LCS may result in false-positive findings, which can lead to invasive procedures and potential morbidity. Conversely, current guidelines may fail to capture at-risk individuals, particularly those from under-represented minority populations. To address these limitations, numerous biomarkers have emerged to complement LDCT and improve early lung cancer detection. CONTENT: This review focuses primarily on blood-based biomarkers, including protein, microRNAs, circulating DNA, and methylated DNA panels, in current clinical development for LCS. We also examine other emerging biomarkers-utilizing airway epithelia, exhaled breath, sputum, and urine-under investigation. We highlight challenges and limitations of biomarker testing, as well as recent strategies to integrate molecular strategies with imaging technologies. SUMMARY: Multiple biomarkers are under active investigation for LCS, either to improve risk-stratification after nodule detection or to optimize risk-based patient selection for LDCT-based screening. Results from ongoing and future clinical trials will elucidate the clinical utility of biomarkers in the LCS paradigm.
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.