ArticleJMIR cancer2026
Navigating the Complexity of Lung Cancer Surveillance Practices: Qualitative Pilot Study on Provider Perspectives.
Article in JMIR cancer, 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: Surveillance is noted to be an important part of survivorship to detect recurrence and/or second primary lung cancer (SPLC) at a curable stage. However, current surveillance guidelines remain controversial, and the factors providers consider in clinical decision-making are neither well-defined nor consistently applied. Objective: In order to inform the qualitative protocol for a larger national study, this pilot study aimed to understand the factors that influence lung cancer surveillance and how providers view risk stratification as a potential tool to inform surveillance practices. Methods: Semistructured interviews were conducted between October 2023 and July 2024 with purposively sampled providers involved in treating and surveilling patients with lung cancer from the US-based Palo Alto Veterans Affairs Medical Center and Stanford Medicine and its affiliate clinics. Providers were recruited through both email outreach and in-person invitations. Interviews were transcribed by an external transcription service and analyzed through a qualitative inductive content analysis approach to identify themes. Results: In total, 11 physicians and 2 advanced practice providers (N=13) participated in interviews. The majority were from medical specialties (n=8, 61.5%), and the average number of years of practice as a provider was 9 years. A total of 3 themes were identified that describe the clinicians' sentiments about current surveillance practices and how a risk stratification tool could be used in screening for recurrence and/or SPLC. Clinicians consider a variety of clinical and nonclinical factors (category 1: factors that influence clinical decision making) and highlighted limits of a risk stratification tool, including concerns about generalizability, accuracy, and validity (category 2: sentiments toward a hypothetical risk stratification tool). Finally, concerns were raised about how delivering risk stratification data might impact patient anxiety, misinterpretation, and adherence to surveillance plans (category 3: delivery of risk stratification data to patients). Conclusions: This qualitative analysis highlights the complexity of lung cancer surveillance decision-making and provider concerns about tool accuracy and delivery. While risk stratification tools may support surveillance decisions, their further development must address data quality, accuracy across diverse clinical and nonclinical risk factors, and effective patient-level data delivery. Doing so will facilitate the practical implementation of risk stratification tools to improve surveillance of SPLC and recurrence.
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.