ArticleCancer medicine2024
Gender-specific outcomes of low-dose computed tomography screening for lung cancer detection: A retrospective study in Chinese never-smoker population.
Article in Cancer medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Trends in lung cancer incidence and mortality and the potential for overdiagnosis associated with computed tomography screening across 21 countries on six continents.Journal of thoracic disease · 2026Article
- LDCT screening for lung cancer in East Asian never-smokers: balancing benefits and overdiagnosis-related harms.The Lancet regional health. Western Pacific · 2026Review
- Gender-specific outcomes of low-dose computed tomography screening for lung cancer detection: A retrospective study in Chinese never-smoker population.Cancer medicine · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesLow-dose computed tomography (LDCT) has emerged as a pivotal tool for detecting lung cancer among ever-smokers. This study aims to evaluate the gender-specific outcomes of LDCT screening within the Chinese never-smoking population.
methodsWe conducted a single-center, retrospective cohort study, which analyzed LDCT screening outcomes for 42,018 asymptomatic participants. Specifically, we focused on assessing gender-specific differences in the prevalence of pulmonary nodules, and the incidence of lung cancer diagnosis among never-smokers.
resultsAmong the 42,018 eligible participants, 41.50% were females and 58.50% were males. Most participants were non-smokers (77.57%), with a significantly higher proportion of non-smokers among females than males (99.33% vs. 62.14%). Pulmonary nodules were identified in 2.66% of participants, with a higher prevalence in females (2.99%) than males (2.43%) (p < 0.001). Non-smoking females had a higher incidence of positive nodules than non-smoking males (2.98% vs. 2.38%, p < 0.001). Invasive biopsies were performed in 334 individuals with nodules, confirming lung cancer in 258 cases. The majority of these cancer cases were non-smokers (212), with non-smoking females showing a higher incidence (0.85%) compared to males (0.43%) (p < 0.001). There was no significant difference in the false-positive rates between non-smoking females (0.14%) and males (0.13%). Multivariate analysis showed that never-smoking women were more likely to undergo biopsies (OR 1.65, p = 0.0016) and had a higher, though not statistically significant, probability of lung cancer diagnosis (OR 1.84, p = 0.06).
conclusionThis study elucidates sex-based differences within the Chinese population, revealing a higher prevalence of pulmonary nodules and lung cancers among non-smoking females. These findings offer valuable reference for both clinical practice and future research initiatives.
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.