ArticleChest2026
Comparison of Underlying Risk of Developing and Dying From Lung Cancer in Screened Populations.
Article in Chest, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundTrial participants typically are healthier than the general population. Differences in underlying characteristics between the population undergoing lung cancer screening (LCS) and LCS trial participants may alter the benefits of LCS. RESEARCH QUESTION: Does the risk of lung cancer developing and death resulting differ between trial participants and the general population? STUDY DESIGN AND
methodsUsing data from the (1) the North Carolina Lung Screening Registry (NCLSR), (2) the 2022 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) Lung Cancer Screening Module, and (3) the National Lung Screening Trial (NLST), we estimated the 5-year probability of lung cancer developing and death resulting if patients were not screened using publicly available macros. Using Cohen's D, we compared these metrics in NCLSR and BRFSS populations with those in NLST participants.
resultsBRFSS and NCLSR populations were older, had higher rates of COPD and prior history of cancer, and higher risk of lung cancer developing and death resulting compared with NLST participants. Although NCLSR populations were more likely to be currently smoking, median smoking exposure was similar among all groups. Median 5-year lung cancer risk was 21.2 per 1,000 NLST participants (interquartile range,13.0-35.2 per 1,000 NLST participants) compared with 46.1 per 1,000 2013 BRFSS participants (Cohen's D = 0.67515), 34.5 per 1,000 2021 BRFSS participants (Cohen's D = 0.47813), 36.5 per 1,000 2013 NCLSR participants (Cohen's D = 0.07748), and 32.3 per 1000 2021 NCLSR participants (Cohen's D = 0.48289). Median 5-year probability of dying of lung cancer if not screened showed similar patterns, with lowest rates among NLST participants at 12.5 deaths per 1,000 participants vs BRFSS and NCLSR populations.
interpretationOur results showed that NCLSR and BRFSS populations have similar smoking exposure as NLST participants, but higher prevalence of lung cancer risk factors, lung cancer risk scores, and risk of death resulting from lung cancer if not screened. Monitoring LCS in the general population is crucial because compared with trial participants, individuals in the general population are older and have more comorbidities, raising concerns about potential LCS harms. However, they have a higher risk of dying of lung cancer if not screened.
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.