ArticleInternational journal of cancer2025
Stage- and histology-specific sensitivity for the detection of lung cancer of the NELSON screening protocol-A modeling study.
Article in International journal of cancer, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- A comparative analysis of heterogeneity in lung cancer screening effectiveness in two randomised controlled trials.Nature communications · 2025Trial
- Survival impact of pN2a and pN2b nodal status in stage IIB-IIIB non-small cell lung cancer under the 9Turk gogus kalp damar cerrahisi dergisi · 2026Article
- Stage- and histology-specific sensitivity for the detection of lung cancer of the NELSON screening protocol-A modeling study.International journal of cancer · 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
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The Dutch-Belgian lung cancer (LC) screening trial (Nederlands-Leuvens Longkanker Screenings Onderzoek [NELSON]) demonstrated low-dose computed tomography (CT) reduces LC mortality by 24% among men. The NELSON protocol differed from previous trials in the eligibility criteria, the use of volume-based nodule management, and increasing screening intervals. The early-stage sensitivity of the protocol is pivotal in determining the optimal screening strategy, such as the interval and age range. The MIcrosimulation SCreening ANalysis-Lung natural history model was used to reproduce LC incidence and mortality by detection method (clinical or screen-detected), sex, histology, and stage in the NELSON trial based on individual-level data. We evaluated screening effectiveness by stage and histology, accounting for population characteristics, trial design, and LC epidemiology. We find stage IA non-small cell LC (NSCLC) sensitivity of 24.6% (other NSCLC) to 41.0% (adenocarcinoma) at baseline screening. At repeat screening rounds, we find this increased to 70.9% for stage IA adenocarcinoma. For stage IB, the sensitivity by histology ranges from 26.4% to 77.1%; for stage II, 39.6%-81.9%. Upon detection, the probability of LC mortality prevention is estimated at 83% for stage IA. The sensitivity for detecting early-stage LC is found to depend on the histology of cancer and is increased for adenocarcinoma at repeat screenings. Despite a low rate of referral to follow-up screening in the NELSON trial, early-stage CT sensitivity and the probability of mortality prevention were similar to previous estimates from the National Lung cancer Screening Trial. Previously demonstrated screening effectiveness may be maintained when implementing new programs, while reducing unnecessary follow-up when considering NELSON evidence.
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.