Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40234338›Full record

ReviewEuropean radiology2025

Pros and cons of reporting incidental findings in lung cancer screening.

Roberta Eufrasia Ledda, Gianluca Milanese, Marie-Pierre Revel, Annemiek Snoeckx

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in European radiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Roberta Eufrasia Ledda *Department of Medicine and Surgery (DiMeC), University of Parma, Parma, Italy.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3184-2676
Gianluca Milanese *Department of Medicine and Surgery (DiMeC), University of Parma, Parma, Italy. gianluca.milanese@unipr.it.
Marie-Pierre RevelDepartment of Radiology, Hôpital Cochin, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, Paris, France.
Annemiek SnoeckxAntwerp University Hospital, Edegem, Belgium.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Incidental findings (IFs) are common in lung cancer screening (LCS). While the detection of some of these findings can lead to early diagnosis and treatment of clinically significant conditions, it also carries the risks of overdiagnosis and overtreatment, causing anxiety for patients and increased economic costs for health systems. Effective management of IFs requires a balanced approach guided by clear guidelines, standardized reporting, and participants-centered communication. As the field of LCS evolves, continued research and innovation will be essential in refining the strategies for managing IFs, ensuring that the benefits of screening are maximized while minimizing potential harm. Evidence-based guidelines on reporting and management of IFs, however, are still lacking. This narrative review explores the pros and cons of reporting IFs in LCS, focusing on key controversies. KEY POINTS: Reporting and managing incidental findings in lung cancer screening is largely debated. The detection of incidental findings can lead to early diagnosis of clinically significant conditions but carries the risks of overdiagnosis and overtreatment. A balance must be found to have a positive impact on the population while not placing a burden on healthcare systems.

Indexed as

Early Detection of CancerIncidental FindingsLung NeoplasmsHumansMass ScreeningOverdiagnosisTomography, X-Ray ComputedIncidental findingsLow-dose computed tomographyLung cancer screening

Identifiers

PMID40234338
PMCPMC12417295

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.