Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38289605›Full record

ArticleJAMA network open2024

Comparing Lung Cancer Screening Strategies in a Nationally Representative US Population Using Transportability Methods for the National Lung Cancer Screening Trial.

Sarah E Robertson, Nina R Joyce, Jon A Steingrimsson, Elizabeth A Stuart, Denise R Aberle, Constantine A Gatsonis, Issa J Dahabreh

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA network open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Observational
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Sarah E RobertsonCAUSALab, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts.
Nina R JoyceDepartment of Epidemiology, Brown University School of Public Health, Providence, Rhode Island.
Jon A SteingrimssonDepartment of Biostatistics, Brown University School of Public Health, Providence, Rhode Island.
Elizabeth A StuartDepartments of Mental Health, Biostatistics, and Health Policy and Management, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland.
Denise R AberleMedical & Imaging Informatics Group, Department of Radiological Sciences, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles.
Constantine A GatsonisDepartment of Biostatistics, Brown University School of Public Health, Providence, Rhode Island.
Issa J DahabrehCAUSALab, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts.

Funding

Methods for generalizing inferences from cluster randomized controlled trials to target populationsR01LM013616 · NLM · HARVARD UNIVERSITY D/B/A HARVARD SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH · PI DAHABREH, ISSA J. · 2022 to 2025
$1.4M
Transporting effects using a multicenter randomized study to different target populationsR36HS028373 · AHRQ · BROWN UNIVERSITY · PI ROBERTSON, SARAH E · 2021 to 2021
$43k
AHRQ HHS R36 HS028373NLM NIH HHS R01 LM013616
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: The National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) found that screening for lung cancer with low-dose computed tomography (CT) reduced lung cancer-specific and all-cause mortality compared with chest radiography. It is uncertain whether these results apply to a nationally representative target population. Objective: To extend inferences about the effects of lung cancer screening strategies from the NLST to a nationally representative target population of NLST-eligible US adults. Design, Setting, and Participants: This comparative effectiveness study included NLST data from US adults at 33 participating centers enrolled between August 2002 and April 2004 with follow-up through 2009 along with National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) cross-sectional household interview survey data from 2010. Eligible participants were adults aged 55 to 74 years, and were current or former smokers with at least 30 pack-years of smoking (former smokers were required to have quit within the last 15 years). Transportability analyses combined baseline covariate, treatment, and outcome data from the NLST with covariate data from the NHIS and reweighted the trial data to the target population. Data were analyzed from March 2020 to May 2023. Interventions: Low-dose CT or chest radiography screening with a screening assessment at baseline, then yearly for 2 more years. Main Outcomes and Measures: For the outcomes of lung-cancer specific and all-cause death, mortality rates, rate differences, and ratios were calculated at a median (25th percentile and 75th percentile) follow-up of 5.5 (5.2-5.9) years for lung cancer-specific mortality and 6.5 (6.1-6.9) years for all-cause mortality. Results: The transportability analysis included 51 274 NLST participants and 685 NHIS participants representing the target population (of approximately 5 700 000 individuals after survey-weighting). Compared with the target population, NLST participants were younger (median [25th percentile and 75th percentile] age, 60 [57 to 65] years vs 63 [58 to 67] years), had fewer comorbidities (eg, heart disease, 6551 of 51 274 [12.8%] vs 1 025 951 of 5 739 532 [17.9%]), and were more educated (bachelor's degree or higher, 16 349 of 51 274 [31.9%] vs 859 812 of 5 739 532 [15.0%]). In the target population, for lung cancer-specific mortality, the estimated relative rate reduction was 18% (95% CI, 1% to 33%) and the estimated absolute rate reduction with low-dose CT vs chest radiography was 71 deaths per 100 000 person-years (95% CI, 4 to 138 deaths per 100 000 person-years); for all-cause mortality the estimated relative rate reduction was 6% (95% CI, -2% to 12%). In the NLST, for lung cancer-specific mortality, the estimated relative rate reduction was 21% (95% CI, 9% to 32%) and the estimated absolute rate reduction was 67 deaths per 100 000 person-years (95% CI, 27 to 106 deaths per 100 000 person-years); for all-cause mortality, the estimated relative rate reduction was 7% (95% CI, 0% to 12%). Conclusions and Relevance: Estimates of the comparative effectiveness of low-dose CT screening compared with chest radiography in a nationally representative target population were similar to those from unweighted NLST analyses, particularly on the relative scale. Increased uncertainty around effect estimates for the target population reflects large differences in the observed characteristics of trial participants and the target population.

Indexed as

Heart DiseasesLung NeoplasmsAdultCross-Sectional StudiesEarly Detection of CancerHumansMiddle AgedTomography, X-Ray Computed

Identifiers

PMID38289605
PMCPMC10828917

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.