ArticleThorax2026
Upstaging of screen-detected lung cancers during diagnostic assessment.
Article in Thorax, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03934866 (The SUMMIT Study), which is not on this 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.
The SUMMIT Study: Cancer Screening Study With or Without Low Dose Lung CT to Validate a Multi-cancer Early Detection Test
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
21 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionLung cancer is the leading cause of cancer-related death worldwide. Low-dose CT (LDCT) screening improves outcomes by detecting early-stage cancers as pulmonary nodules. As most are benign, diagnosing these nodules is challenging and often requires surveillance imaging. The aim of this study is to assess the frequency of cancer progression in a lung cancer screening study as measured by tumour stage (T-stage).
methodsSUMMIT is a prospective cohort study assessing implementation of lung cancer screening with LDCT in a high-risk population. Screen-detected lung cancers with clinical tumour stage cT1a-c at time of referral were included. Upstaging was defined as an increase in T-stage from referral to treatment. The date of death was obtained from the National Cancer Registration and Analysis Service. Cox proportional hazards analysis with adjustment for age, sex, Charlson Comorbidity Index and pack years was used to assess mortality between groups.
results390 screen-detected cancers were stage cT1a-c at time of referral. Upstaging occurred more frequently in cT1a (n=48, 56%) compared with cT1b (n=83, 38%) or cT1c (n=34, 40%), p=0.01. The proportion of part-solid nodules was similar between groups (upstaged-N=47, 27%, vs not upstaged-N=45, 21%, p=0.19). 43% of tumours increased T-stage from referral to first treatment (n=165). In participants upstaged, time from referral to treatment was longer (upstaged: 84 days, 46-298 vs not upstaged: 72 days, 43-211, p=0.04). Adjusted overall survival analyses showed an association between upstaging and mortality (HR 1.68, 95% CI 1.13 to 2.51, p=0.01).
conclusionTumour upstaging occurred in nearly half of early-stage cases in a lung cancer screening population. Tumour upstaging was associated with longer time to treatment and poorer outcomes in this population. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03934866.
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.