Observational studyThe Medical journal of Australia2025
Incidental findings during lung low-dose computed tomography cancer screening in Australia and Canada, 2016-21: a prospective observational study.
Observational study in The Medical journal of Australia, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02871856 (International Lung Screen Trial), which is not on this 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.
International Lung Screen Trial
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Practices in reporting incidental findings in lung cancer screening by low-dose CT: a European Survey of Radiologists by SOLACE.Insights into imaging · 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
22 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesTo investigate the type and frequency of incidental findings in people at high risk of lung cancer who undergo baseline low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) lung cancer screening in Australia and Canada. STUDY
designProspective observational study; sub-study of the single-arm International Lung Screen Trial (ILST) lung cancer screening study. SETTING,
participantsAustralian and Canadian people enrolled in the ILST, 25 August 2016 - 21 November 2020; inclusion criteria: aged 50-80 years, active smoking history, and high risk of lung cancer (estimated six-year lung cancer risk of 1.51% or more, based on the PLCO
main outcome measuresPrevalence of incidental findings during baseline LDCT lung cancer screening (using a research checklist), by country, classified by experienced radiologists as requiring or not requiring clinical follow-up; reporting of incidental findings in clinical reports for treating physicians (two Australian sites only).
resultsA total of 4403 participants completed baseline LDCT screening at the six participating hospitals. The mean age (64-65 years) and the proportions of participants who currently smoked (47-55%) were similar at all six sites; the proportion of female participants was larger in Sydney (52%) and Vancouver (51%) than the other sites (39-44%). At least one incidental finding was made during baseline LDCT screening of 3225 people (72.8%); findings in 454 people (10.3%) required clinical follow-up. The most frequent incidental findings were coronary artery calcification (3022 of 4380 participants with recorded results, 69.0%) and emphysema (2378 of 4401, 54.0%). Marked differences between the Australian and Canadian sites in the prevalence of incidental findings were noted, and also between the two Australian sites in their communication of incidental findings in clinical screening reports.
conclusionIncidental findings during lung cancer screening were frequent, and clinical reporting of these findings was inconsistent. When LDCT lung cancer screening is introduced in Australia, a standardised reporting template should be used to provide clear guidance about the clinical significance of such findings.
trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02871856 (prospective, 18 August 2016).
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.