ArticleLancet regional health. Americas2026
Benefits and harms of lung cancer screening strategies in Argentina: a modeling study.
Article in Lancet regional health. Americas, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Argentina lacks formal recommendations for lung cancer screening (LCS). We modeled the potential benefits and harms of different national LCS strategies with low-dose computed tomography in Argentina. Methods: We adapted one of the Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network (CISNET) LCS models to Argentina's epidemiologic and demographic context. Using inputs from Argentina's version of the Smoking History Generator, a microsimulation model that generates cohort-specific smoking histories by age and sex, we modeled 26 annual screening scenarios for the 1960 birth cohort, including the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) 2021 criteria (ages 50-80, ≥20 pack-years, currently smoke or ≤15 years since quitting (YSQ)) and the US National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) criteria (ages 55-74, ≥30 pack-years, currently smoke or ≤15 YSQ). Findings: For any given number of screens, scenarios with an upper screening age limit of 80 years yielded the greatest number of lung cancer deaths (LCD) averted, followed by those that relax the YSQ criterion. Under the USPSTF 2021 recommendation, 25·2% of the population would be eligible for LCS, resulting in 547 LCD averted and 7618 life-years gained (LYG) per 100,000 population; the expected relative reduction in LC mortality is 14·6%. Under the NLST criteria, 14·2% would be eligible for LCS, resulting in 289 LCD averted and 4466 LYG per 100,000 population, with a relative reduction in lung cancer mortality of 7·7%. Interpretation: Approaches extending the upper age limit and relaxing YSQ criteria are the most effective. Funding: IASLC Young Investigator Grant and NIH/NCI U01CA253858 grant.
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.