Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38937281›Full record

ArticleJournal of the National Cancer Institute2024

The risk and benefit profiles of US-eligible lung cancer screening attendees vs nonattendees.

Elizabeth Y Zhang, Li C Cheung, Hormuzd A Katki, Barry I Graubard, Ahmedin Jemal, Anil K Chaturvedi, Rebecca Landy

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

7 authors.

Elizabeth Y ZhangDivision of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, Department of Health and Human Services, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA.
Li C CheungDivision of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, Department of Health and Human Services, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA.
Hormuzd A KatkiDivision of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, Department of Health and Human Services, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA.
Barry I GraubardDivision of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, Department of Health and Human Services, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA.
Ahmedin JemalSurveillance and Health Equity Science, American Cancer Society, Atlanta, GA, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-0000-4111
Anil K ChaturvediDivision of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, Department of Health and Human Services, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA.
Rebecca LandyDivision of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, Department of Health and Human Services, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-4042-4820

Funding

NCI NIH HHSNIHNIH HHSOffice of Human Subjects Research
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommend lung cancer screening for individuals aged 50-80 years with at least 20 pack-years and no more than 15 quit-years, but uptake is low. The risk and benefit profiles of screening attendees are unknown; consequently, the impact and lost opportunity of ongoing lung cancer screening in the United States remains unclear.

methodsWe estimated lung cancer death risk (using the Lung Cancer Death Risk Assessment Tool) and life gained from screening (using the Life Years Gained From Screening-Computed Tomography model) for individuals aged 50-79 years who ever-smoked in the US representative 2022 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System. We compared lung cancer death risk and life gained among USPSTF-eligible individuals by screening status (self-reported screened vs not screened in past year) and estimated the number of lung cancer deaths averted and life-years gained under current screening levels and if everyone eligible was screened.

resultsUSPSTF eligibility was 33.7% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 33.1% to 34.4%), of whom 17.9% (95% CI = 17.0% to 18.8%) self-reported screening. Screening uptake increased with increasing lung cancer death risk quintile (Q1 = 5.2%, 95% CI = 3.0% to 8.8%; Q5 = 21.8%, 95% CI = 20.3% to 23.3%) and life-gain from screening quintile (Q1 = 6.2%, 95% CI = 3.8% to 9.9%; Q5 = 20.8%, 95% CI = 19.5% to 22.2%). Screened individuals had higher lung cancer death risk (risk ratio [RR] = 1.35, 95% CI = 1.26 to 1.46) and life-years gained (RR = 1.19, 95% CI = 1.12 to 1.25) than unscreened individuals. Currently, screening averts 19 306 lung cancer deaths and gains 237 564 life-years; screening everyone eligible would additionally avert 56 956 lung cancer deaths and gain 751 850 life-years. Two-thirds of USPSTF lung-eligible women were up to date with breast cancer screening, but only 17.3% attended lung screening in the past year.

conclusionsEligible screening attendees had higher lung cancer death risk and benefit from screening. Higher rates of screening could substantially increase the number of lung cancer deaths prevented.

Indexed as

Early Detection of CancerLung NeoplasmsAgedAged, 80 and overBehavioral Risk Factor Surveillance SystemFemaleHumansMaleMass ScreeningMiddle AgedRisk AssessmentRisk FactorsSmokingTomography, X-Ray ComputedUnited States

Identifiers

PMID38937281
PMCPMC11630508

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.