ArticleScientific reports2024
Survival of lung cancer patients according to screening eligibility using Korean Lung Cancer Registry 2014-2016.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. 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.
- Screening Eligibility and Survival Among Patients With Lung Cancer in Korea.JAMA network open · 2026Article
- Updates on lung cancer screening for early detection.The Korean journal of internal medicine · 2025Review
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
Abstract
This study assessed survival for lung cancer patients meeting criteria for the National Lung Cancer Screening Program in Korea launched in 2019 and updated guideline reported by the US Preventive Service Task Force (USPSTF). We assessed all-cause mortality based on the Korean Lung Cancer Registry (KLCR), including lung cancer patients diagnosed in 2014-2016. We compared survival among lung cancer patients eligible for extended USPSTF criteria (age 50-80 years and ≥ 20 pack-years) and those meeting current criteria (age 54-74 years and ≥ 30 pack-years, current or within the past 15 years). The nearest neighbour propensity-score matching was performed to generate a matched set. Kaplan-Meier curves were generated to compare survival among groups; differences in survival were analyzed using the stratified log-rank test. The mortality risk was estimated based on a Cox proportional hazards regression model and the robust standard error was calculated. Of 8110 patients, 37.4% and 24.3% met the extended USPSTF eligibility criteria and National Lung Cancer Screening Program (NLCSP) criteria, respectively. Overall mortality risk was not significantly different between the extended younger age group and the NLCSP group (hazard ratio [HR] [95% confidence interval (CI)]: 0.78 [0.59-1.02]). The extended older age group had a significantly higher mortality risk (HR [95% CI]: 1.41 [1.26-1.58]). Mortality risk was not significantly different between patients who smoked 20-29 pack-years and those who smoked ≥ 30 pack-years (HR [95% CI]: 0.90 [0.79-1.03]). Lung cancer patients aged 50-53 years and those with a 20-29 pack-years smoking history exhibited similar mortality risk to individuals meeting current criteria, while patients aged 75-80 years were at a higher risk of death. Although we verified similar or higher mortality risks in extended subgroups, a careful assessment of the benefits and harms of the screening tests is necessary when contemplating the extension of criteria.
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.