Observational studyThoracic cancer2026
Disruption of Radiological Surveillance Following a Global Health Crisis in Resected Lung Cancer.
Observational study in Thoracic cancer, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Disruption of Radiological Surveillance Following a Global Health Crisis in Resected Lung Cancer.Thoracic cancer · 2026Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesRadiological surveillance after curative-intent lung cancer resection is essential for early detection of recurrence and second primary tumors. Large-scale health emergencies can compromise oncologic follow-up. This study quantifies the impact of a health crisis on radiological surveillance in a national cohort of resected lung cancer patients.
methodsA time-segmented observational cohort study was performed using data from the prospective, multicenter GEVATS registry. Surveillance density (CT/month) was evaluated across three predefined periods: pre-pandemic (baseline), state of alarm (maximum healthcare restrictions), and post-alarm (recovery phase). The population at risk was updated for each period. Subgroup analyses during the post-alarm phase assessed prioritization according to neoadjuvant treatment, pathological stage, age, and comorbidity.
resultsAmong 2382 eligible patients, surveillance density declined progressively from the pre-pandemic period (0.157 ± 0.079 CT/month) to the state of alarm (0.098 ± 0.071 CT/month). In the post-alarm phase, density dropped sharply to 0.023 ± 0.018 CT/month (equivalent to one CT every 3.6 years), representing a 76.5% reduction compared with the state-of-alarm period (p < 0.001). This under-surveillance was generalized, with no significant differences by pathological stage (p = 0.084), age (p = 0.564), or comorbidity (p = 0.872). Only prior neoadjuvant therapy was associated with a slightly higher density (p = 0.040).
conclusionsA prolonged health crisis resulted in a profound and persistent reduction in radiological surveillance after lung cancer resection, without evidence of risk-based prioritization. These findings support the need for contingency frameworks within clinical guidelines to preserve continuity of oncologic follow-up during future health emergencies.
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.