ArticleJournal of the National Cancer Center2021
Results of the cancer screening feasibility study in China: a multicentered randomized controlled trial of lung and colorectal cancer screening.
Article in Journal of the National Cancer Center, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Cost effectiveness analysis of low dose computed tomography lung cancer screening in Chinese population.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- National lung cancer screening program feasibility study in Estonia.Interdisciplinary cardiovascular and thoracic surgery · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
22 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: To provide an understanding of important aspects of the participant recruitment and data collection, become aware of any potential problems, and obtain necessary information in order to design a large-scale randomized controlled trial (RCT) for lung cancer and colorectal cancer (CRC) screening in China. Methods: This feasibility study was a multicentered, open-label, pilot randomized trial. A total of 2696 participants who were at high risk of lung cancer were recruited from three screening centers and randomly allocated to arm 1 ( Results: Participant characteristics were similar across study arms. The compliance rate of annual LDCT screening in arm 1 was 86.4% (95% CI: 83.9%, 88.5%) at baseline (T0), and 69.0% (95% CI: 65.8%, 72.0%) and 70.7% (95% CI: 67.6%, 73.7%) at the following two rounds (T1 and T2). The compliance rates of biennial LDCT screening in arm 2 were similar to those in arm 1 in the corresponding rounds. The compliance rate was 55.5% (95% CI: 52.2%, 58.8%) for colonoscopy in arm 1, while the compliance rates of OC-FIT, Insure-FIT, and the Septin 9 test in arms 2 and 3 were all approximately 90% at T0, decreasing to 65%-80% at T1 and T2. The positivity rate, cancer case detection rate, and contamination rate of screening for lung cancer and CRC were also reported. Conclusion: In this pilot study, the feasibility of an RCT in China of lung cancer and CRC screening was demonstrated.
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.