Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38813448›Full record

ArticleEClinicalMedicine2024

Projected effectiveness of lung cancer screening and concurrent smoking cessation support in the Netherlands.

Koen de Nijs, Kevin Ten Haaf, Carlijn van der Aalst, Harry J de Koning

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in EClinicalMedicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing 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

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Geographic Access to Low-Dose CT Lung Cancer Screening in Tennessee: Disparities by Socioeconomic Variables, Rurality, and Appalachian Status.The Journal of rural health : official journal of the American Rural Health Association and the National Rural Health Care Association · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. A guide to cancer screening.Nature reviews. Clinical oncology · 2026
    Review
  4. A Scoping Review on Calibration Methods for Cancer Simulation Models.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2025
    Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Koen de NijsDepartment of Public Health, Erasmus MC - University Medical Center Rotterdam, 3015 CE Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Kevin Ten HaafDepartment of Public Health, Erasmus MC - University Medical Center Rotterdam, 3015 CE Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Carlijn van der AalstDepartment of Public Health, Erasmus MC - University Medical Center Rotterdam, 3015 CE Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Harry J de KoningDepartment of Public Health, Erasmus MC - University Medical Center Rotterdam, 3015 CE Rotterdam, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: The NELSON trial demonstrated a 24% intention-to-screen reduction in lung cancer mortality from regular screening with low-dose computed tomography. Implementation efforts in Europe are ongoing, but still await country-specific and NELSON-adapted estimates of the benefits and harms of screening. Methods: We use the MISCAN-Lung microsimulation model, calibrated to individual-level outcomes from the NELSON trial, to estimate the effectiveness under 100% compliance of biennial lung cancer screening with concomitant smoking cessation support for Dutch cohorts 1942-1961. The model simulates smoking behaviour, lung cancer incidence and the effects of screening and smoking cessation on lung- and other-cause mortality. Findings: We find biennial screening with eligibility criteria equal to those of the 4-IN-THE-LUNG-RUN implementation trial to reduce lung cancer mortality by 16.9% among the eligible population, equivalent to 1076 LC deaths prevented per year in the next two decades. Eligible individuals constitute 21.5% of the cohorts studied, and stand to face 61% of the projected lung cancer mortality burden in the absence of screening. 10.3 life-years are gained per prevented LC death, for 14.9 screens per life year gained. Concomitant smoking cessation interventions may increase the expected gains in life years from screening by up to 20%. Interpretation: Policy makers should imminently consider the implementation of lung cancer screening in Europe, paired with effective smoking cessation interventions. Smoking cessation interventions on their own are not estimated to yield a gain in remaining life expectancy of the magnitude offered by even a single CT screen. Funding: European UnionHorizon 2020 grant 848294: 4-IN-THE-LUNG-RUN.

Indexed as

Computed tomographyEarly detectionLung cancerNELSONScreeningSmoking cessation

Identifiers

PMID38813448
PMCPMC11133792

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.