ArticleCancer2025
Examining trends in lung cancer screening over 10 years: Eligibility, participation, cancer detection, and quality implications.
Article in Cancer, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Incidence and mortality trends after introduction of lung cancer screening in a community-based healthcare system.Cancer epidemiology · 2026Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundMore than a decade ago, the National Lung Screening Trial led to the recommendation of low-dose computed tomography (CT) for lung cancer screening (LCS). However, few studies have explored how program changes and external factors affect patient outcomes.
methodsThis retrospective study included LCS-eligible individuals from Kaiser Permanente Colorado between May 1, 2014, and December 31, 2024. Rates and proportions of LCS orders, completions, adherence to recommended follow-up after baseline screening, and lung cancer yield were calculated. Multivariable log-binomial regression models estimated the factors associated with baseline LCS completion.
resultsOf 23,602 LCS-eligible individuals, 13,576 (58%) received a baseline LCS order and 8621 (37% of eligible; 64% of orders) completed screening. LCS completion was more likely among Asian/Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander or Black races, and individuals who formerly smoked, had a 20- to 29-pack-year smoking history, >1 specialty care visit, a family history of lung cancer, or a greater comorbidity burden. Overall adherence to recommended follow-up was 62%; patients with a Lung CT Screening Reporting and Data System (Lung-RADS) score of 4B or 4X had the highest adherence at 88%. LCS yielded 424 cases of lung cancer (5% of screened), with 68% at stage I, II, or IIIA. Cumulative incidence among those with a positive Lung-RADS score was 20% at 10 years. Secular changes in LCS outcomes correlated with changes to LCS navigation processes, technology, and the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic.
conclusionsThis evaluation of a decade of robust LCS data within a community setting highlights the need for established national quality metrics that incentivize health systems to conduct ongoing program monitoring, evaluation, and adaptation to optimize screening benefits.
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.