ArticleScientific reports2025
Efficacy of contrast versus non-contrast CT surveillance among patients surviving two years without recurrence after surgery for stage I lung cancer.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. 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.
- Can an Unenhanced Reduced-Dose ECG-Gated CT of the Aorta Replace an ECG-Gated CT-Angiography for Diameter Follow-Up of the Ascending Aorta?Journal of cardiovascular development and disease · 2026Article
- Commentary: Lung enteric-type adenocarcinoma with gastric metastasis: a rare case report and literature review.Frontiers in immunology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Contrast-enhanced chest CT (CECT) is more sensitive than non-contrast-enhanced chest CT (NCECT), but NCECT may have comparable efficacy in detecting new primary lung cancer among stage I NSCLC survivors after two years of surveillance. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of NCECT versus CECT for surveillance among stage I NSCLC patients surviving two years after curative resection without disease recurrence. We conducted a retrospective cohort study of patients with stage I NSCLC who underwent curative-intent lung resection between January 2009 and December 2017 using the Registry for Thoracic Cancer Surgery at the Samsung Medical Center, Seoul, Korea. Overall survival, recurrence-free survival, and cost effectiveness were compared between patients undergoing surveillance with CECT and NCECT. Among 3248 patients, 1002 (38.8%) patients underwent NCECT surveillance. During a median follow-up of 2.3 years (interquartile range, 1.5-3.9 years), a total of 208 deaths were observed. Although patients undergoing NCECT surveillance had 0.04 more deaths per 100 person-year compared with patients undergoing CECT surveillance (95% CI -0.36 to 0.44), this difference did not reach statistical significance (1.27 vs. 1.31 per 100 person-years; HR, 1.10; 95% CI 0.81-1.50). Regarding cost effectiveness, CECT group had a gain of 0.024 quality-adjusted life-year but $785 higher total cumulative cost per patient compared to NCECT. There was no difference in recurrence and mortality between NCECT and CECT for surveillance among stage I NSCLC patients who survived two years after surgery without disease recurrence. Further randomized clinical trials are required to confirm the findings.
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.