ArticleLung2024
Examination of Firefighting as an Occupational Exposure Criteria for Lung Cancer Screening.
Article in Lung, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Firefighter cancer risks: a systematic review and proposal for a volunteer-specific decontamination model.Journal of occupational health · 2026Pooled it
- Lung cancer screening in occupational settings: a scoping review.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- LUNG Year in Review: 2024.Lung · 2025Article
- Review
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeFirefighting is known to be carcinogenic to humans. However, current lung cancer screening guidelines do not account for occupational exposure. We hypothesize that firefighting is an independent risk factor associated with the development of high-risk lung nodules on low-dose CT (LDCT).
methodsMembers of a firefighter's union underwent LDCT at a single institution between April 2022 and June 2023 within a lung cancer screening program. Results were interpreted by designated chest radiologists and reported using the Lung-RADS scoring system. Demographic and radiographic data were recorded, and summary statistics are reported.
results1347 individuals underwent lung cancer screening, with a median age of 51 years (IQR 42-58), including 56 (4.2%) females. Overall, 899 (66.7%) were never smokers, 345 (25.6%) were former smokers, and 103 (7.7%) were current smokers. There were 41 firefighters (3.0%) who had high-risk (Lung-RADS 3 or 4) nodules requiring intervention or surveillance, of which 21 (1.5%) were Lung-RADS 3 and 20 (1.5%) that were Lung-RADS 4. Of the firefighters with high-risk nodules, only 6 (14.6%) were eligible for LDCT based on current screening guidelines. There were 7 high-risk nodules (0.5%) that required procedural intervention, 6 (85.7%) of which were from the non-screening eligible cohort. There were also 20 never-smoking firefighters (57.1%) with high-risk nodules that were non-screening eligible.
conclusionFirefighting, even in the absence of smoking history, may be associated with the development of high-risk lung nodules on LDCT. Carefully selected occupational exposures should be considered in the development of future lung cancer screening guidelines.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39164595What 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.