ArticleJournal of the American College of Radiology : JACR2025
Positive Screens Are More Likely in a National Lung Cancer Screening Registry Than the National Lung Screening Trial.
Article in Journal of the American College of Radiology : JACR, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Significant Incidental Findings in the National Lung Screening Trial and Diagnosis of Extrapulmonary Cancer.JAMA network open · 2026Trial
- Applying artificial intelligence to ensure high quality and equitable lung cancer screening.Translational lung cancer research · 2026Review
- A radiomics nomogram integrated with radiological features for preoperative prediction of lung nodule invasiveness: comparison with Lung-RADS.Translational lung cancer research · 2026Article
- Updates in Lung Cancer Screening: A Decade of Evidence.Seminars in respiratory and critical care 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeAlthough lung cancer screening (LCS) with low-dose chest CT (LDCT) is recommended for high-risk populations, little is known about how clinical screening compares with research trials. We compared Lung CT Screening Reporting and Data System (Lung-RADS) scores between a nationally screened population from the ACR's LCS Registry (LCSR) and the National Lung Screening Trial (NLST).
methodsThis retrospective study included baseline LDCT examinations from the LCSR and NLST. Patient characteristics (age, gender, smoking status, pack-years, and body mass index) were obtained. NLST LDCT results were recoded to Lung-RADS version 1.1. A multivariable multinomial logistic model was used to examine variations in Lung-RADS scores by screening group (LCSR versus NLST) and patient characteristics.
resultsIn all, 686,011 and 26,432 participants from the LCSR and NLST, respectively, were included. Compared with the NLST, the LCSR population was older (mean age [SD]: 64.0 [5.4] versus 61.4 [5.0] years); P < .001) and included more female patients (47.9% versus 40.9%; P < .001), and its patients were more likely to be currently smoking (61.5% versus 48.1%; P < .001). After adjusting for age, gender, smoking history, and body mass index, the LCSR population was more significantly likely to have higher Lung-RADS scores than the NLST (adjusted odds ratio and 95% confidence interval > 1 for Lung-RADS scores 2, 3, 4A, 4B, 4X relative to Lung-RADS 1).
conclusionsLung-RADS scores in clinical LCS are higher than in the NLST, even after adjusting for known confounders such as age and smoking. This would imply higher rates of follow-up testing after LCS and potentially higher cancer rates in the clinically screened population than the NLST.
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.