ArticleJTO clinical and research reports2026
Brief Report: Translating Selection Criteria for Lung Cancer Screening to an Indian Context-An Analysis From a Tertiary Health Centre.
Article in JTO clinical and research reports, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Lung cancer is the most common cause of cancer in India, leading to growing interest in the potential for screening. Established lung cancer screening programs exist in both the U.K. and U.S. contexts, using either combinations of risk factors (United States) or risk models (United Kingdom) to determine eligibility. Whether these approaches can be directly translated to an Indian context to determine eligibility for lung cancer remains unknown. Methods: We analyzed a case series of individuals newly diagnosed or under active follow-up for lung cancer at a large tertiary referral center in northern India. We considered eligibility for lung cancer on the basis of the US Preventive Services Taskforce 2021 criteria, and predicted risk using the lung cancer incidence (UCL-I), the lung cancer discrimination (UCL-D), the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial modified 2012 lung cancer risk prediction (PLCOm2012), and Liverpool Lung Project (LLP) models. Results: A total of 472 people with lung cancer were included. The median age at diagnosis of lung cancer was 60 years, and 83.7% of the cohort were men. Most were never- (30.5%) or former (47.3%) smokers. 97% of lung cancers were diagnosed at stages III or IV. Nearly half of the individuals were under the age of 55 or were never-smokers and so would not have been considered for risk assessment under U.K. screening criteria. Fewer than 40% of ever-smokers would have met thresholds for lung cancer screening used in the United States or the United Kingdom. Conclusion: Criteria used to determine eligibility for lung cancer screening in the U.K. and U.S. settings are unlikely to be translatable to an Indian context without modification. Prospective screening studies should be considered before widespread implementation in India.
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.