Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42174716›Full record

ArticleJournal of cardiothoracic surgery2026

Does the lung cancer screening (LCS) pathway independently improve surgical outcomes compared with the routine pathway: a matched-case analysis.

Ananya Mathur, Matar Alzahrani, Ambreen Abid, Madava Djearaman, Patricia Glynn, Nadeem Maddekar, Babu Naidu

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of cardiothoracic surgery, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Ananya MathurBirmingham Medical School, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
Matar AlzahraniInstitution of Inflammation and Aging, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
Ambreen AbidQueen Elizabeth Hospital Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
Madava DjearamanQueen Elizabeth Hospital Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
Patricia GlynnQueen Elizabeth Hospital Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
Nadeem MaddekarQueen Elizabeth Hospital Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
Babu NaiduBirmingham Medical School, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK. b.naidu@bham.ac.uk.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMultiple randomised controlled trials demonstrate that screening is a game changer for lung cancer outcomes. As pilot Lung Cancer Screening schemes expand across the UK, we investigate whether referral through a screening pathway independently influences early postoperative outcomes following lung cancer resection, or whether observed benefits are due to differences in patient characteristics between screened and non-screened populations.

methodsA retrospective cohort analysis was conducted on 370 patients who underwent curative lung cancer resection. Of these, 35 were from the Lung Cancer Screening pathway, while 335 were diagnosed from standard of care pathways. Propensity Score Analysis was then used to create a matched cohort of 34 patients per group to minimise confounding baseline factors such as clinical characteristics and patient demographics. Postoperative outcomes including complications, length of stay, and 30-day mortality were then compared using univariate logistic and linear regression models. Imputation was used for any missing data.

resultsPrior to matching, patients diagnosed via the Lung Cancer Screening pathway demonstrated more favourable baseline characteristics, subsequently requiring matching. Following matching, postoperative outcomes including length of stay (mean difference 1.81 days, p-value = 0.51), overall postoperative complication rate (OR -1.126, CI 0.701, 5.672, p-value = 0.195), complication severity objectively measured by Clavien-Dindo Classification (OR 2.039, CI 0.737, 5.638, p-value = 0.17), and Comprehensive Complication Index (OR 1.797, CI 0.644, 5.011, p-value = 0.263) were not statistically significantly different between the screened and non-screened populations. The 30-day mortality was 0% in the Lung Cancer Screening group, as opposed to 3.9% in the non-Lung Cancer Screening cohort (Absolute Risk Difference = 3.9%), however regression analysis could not be performed due to zero events in the screened group.

conclusionsThe Lung Cancer Screening pathway appears to be indirectly associated with improved postoperative outcomes through patient selection rather than a direct, independent effect of the screening pathway. Larger studies are needed to validate these findings and elucidate how the downstream benefits of screening can be optimised across thoracic surgery pathways for lung cancer.

Indexed as

Early Detection of CancerLung NeoplasmsPneumonectomyAgedFemaleHumansLength of StayMaleMiddle AgedPostoperative ComplicationsPropensity ScoreRetrospective StudiesTreatment Outcome30 Day MortalityLength of StayLung Cancer ScreeningMatched-Case AnalysisPostoperative ComplicationsPropensity Score AnalysisTargeted Lung Health CheckThoracic Surgery

Identifiers

PMID42174716
PMCPMC13383421

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.