ArticleChest2026
Eligibility for Lung Cancer Screening Under the 2021 US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Between Patients Diagnosed With Early vs Late-Stage Lung Cancer: Analysis of 3 Cohort Studies.
Article in Chest, 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
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundLung cancer screening (LCS) aims to detect lung cancers-that have historically been diagnosed at late stages-at earlier stages when the likelihood of cure is high. However, the proportion of individuals diagnosed with late-stage lung cancer in the US who would have qualified for LCS is unknown. RESEARCH QUESTION: What proportion of individuals diagnosed with early-stage vs late-stage lung cancer would have qualified for LCS under the 2021 US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommendation? STUDY DESIGN AND
methodsParticipants diagnosed with lung cancer in the Boston Lung Cancer Study (BLCS), a cancer epidemiology cohort study in Boston, Massachusetts, and the Southern Community Cohort Study (SCCS) and Multiethnic Cohort Study (MECS), 2 large-scale US prospective cohort studies, were identified. In each cohort, we grouped participants according to whether they were diagnosed with early-stage or late-stage lung cancer. The proportion of participants with late-stage lung cancer eligible under the 2021 USPSTF recommendation was evaluated and compared with that among participants with early-stage lung cancer.
resultsA total of 7,017 participants in the BLCS, 1,807 in the SCCS, and 5,681 in the MECS were included. Among participants with late-stage lung cancer, the proportion eligible under the 2021 USPSTF recommendation was 41.2% in the BLCS, 58.9% in the SCCS, and 41.4% in the MECS. Similar proportions of participants diagnosed with early-stage vs late-stage lung cancer met the USPSTF criteria in each cohort. The most common reason for ineligibility among both groups of participants was smoking < 20 pack-years in the SCCS and MECS and stopping smoking > 15 years ago in the BLCS.
interpretationOur results show that, in this analysis of nearly 15,000 participants with lung cancer, only 41% to 59% of participants with late-stage lung cancer would have met the 2021 USPSTF recommendation; similar proportions of participants with early-stage lung cancer would have met the 2021 USPSTF recommendation.
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.