Trial reportNature communications2025
A comparative analysis of heterogeneity in lung cancer screening effectiveness in two randomised controlled trials.
Trial report in Nature communications, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Impact of lung cancer screening eligibility criteria on participants' characteristics and healthcare resources.International journal of cancer · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Clinical trials demonstrate that screening can reduce lung cancer mortality by over 20%. However, lung cancer screening effectiveness (reduction in lung cancer specific mortality) may vary by personal risk-factors. Here we evaluate heterogeneity in lung cancer screening effectiveness through traditional sub-group analyses, predictive modelling approaches and machine-learning in individual-level data from the Dutch-Belgian lung cancer screening trial (NELSON; 14,808 participants, 12,429 men, 2377 women, 2 persons with an unknown sex) and the National Lung Screening Trial (NLST; 53,405 participants, 31,501 men, 21,904 women). We find that screening effectiveness varies by pack-years (screening effectiveness ranges across trials: lowest groups = 26.8-50.9%, highest groups = 5.5-9.5%), smoking status (screening effectiveness ranges across trials: former smokers = 37.8-39.1%, current smokers = 16.1-22.7%) and sex (screening effectiveness ranges across trials: women = 24.6-25.3%; men = 8.3-24.9%). Furthermore, screening effectiveness varies by histology (screening effectiveness ranges across trials: adenocarcinoma = 17.8-23.0%, other lung cancers = 24.5-35.5%, small-cell carcinoma = 9.7%-11.3%). Screening is ineffective for squamous-cell carcinoma in NLST (screening effectiveness = 27.9% (95% confidence interval: 69.8% increase to 4.5% decrease) mortality increase) but effective in NELSON (screening effectiveness = 52.2% (95% confidence interval: 25.7-69.1% decrease) mortality reduction). We find that variations in screening effectiveness across pack-years, smoking status, and sex are primarily explained by a greater prevalence of histologies with favourable screening effectiveness in these groups. Our study shows that heterogeneity in lung screening effectiveness is primarily driven by histology and that relaxing smoking-related screening eligibility criteria may enhance screening effectiveness.
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.