ReviewNature reviews. Clinical oncology2026
Innovative approaches for lung cancer screening and interception.
Review in Nature reviews. Clinical oncology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Anatomical-Contextual YOLOv8-YOLOv12 Framework for Pulmonary Nodule Detection in CT: Multi-Organ Learning and Cross-Dataset Validation.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Application of confocal laser endomicroscopy in the diagnosis of peripheral pulmonary lesions: a narrative review.Journal of thoracic disease · 2026Review
- Sputum Liquid Biopsy for Lung Cancer Screening, Diagnosis, Subtyping, Surveillance, Response Prediction, and Prognostication: A Scoping Review.Medical sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Maintaining momentum: the history and future of lung cancer disparities in the United States.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
16 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Lung cancer remains the leading cause of cancer-related deaths worldwide, partly because many patients are diagnosed at late stages, highlighting the urgent need for effective early detection and intervention strategies. Low-dose computed tomography (LDCT)-based screening reduces lung cancer mortality in high-risk populations defined by age and smoking history; however, the uptake of LDCT remains low among eligible individuals. Compounding this issue, modelling studies estimate that nearly half of lung cancers occur in individuals who do not meet eligibility criteria for LDCT-based lung cancer screening under current guidelines. Moreover, LDCT-based screening has inherent limitations, including a high rate of false-positive results that can lead to unnecessary invasive procedures, as well as substantial costs that limit scalability. Major efforts have been made to identify novel biomarkers such as radiomic features and liquid biopsy assays to enhance the accuracy of lung cancer risk prediction. Furthermore, the increasing detection of pulmonary nodules by LDCT or diagnostic CT scans has highlighted the importance of therapeutic interventions that can enable interception of high-risk precancerous nodules and halt their progression to invasive disease. In this Review, we summarize the current state of lung cancer screening, the disparities and infrastructural considerations for optimal implementation, and future directions in the development of biomarkers and design of precancer interception strategies that could transform both lung cancer prevention and early intervention.
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.