ArticleInsights into imaging2026
Education and training in low-dose CT lung cancer screening across Europe: a survey study.
Article in Insights into imaging, 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
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesTo explore the status of low-dose CT lung cancer screening (LCS) training practices, identify existing gaps, and define key competencies to be included in LCS educational curricula. MATERIALS AND
methodsAs part of the European SOLACE project, a structured cross-sectional survey consisting of 11 closed- and open-ended items, developed based on relevant literature, international guidelines, and expert input to assess LCS current practices and training needs, was administered to a panel of European LCS experts. Participants were invited to individual Zoom interviews (May-November 2025). Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics.
resultsTwenty-five LCS experts were interviewed from 14 European countries, including 10 radiologists (40%), 8 pulmonologists (32%), 4 thoracic surgeons (16%), 1 project manager (4%), 1 smoking cessation specialist (4%), and 1 general practitioner (GP) (4%). Reported training activities ranged from established programmes (4/14 countries), to learning initiatives (6/14) and/or planned programmes (4/14). Radiologists (96%), pulmonologists (80%), and GPs (60%) were identified as the main target groups for training. On a 6-point Likert scale (0 = not important, 5 = extremely important), experts indicated limited awareness of training needs as the most relevant gap (mean 2.8 ± 2.2). Key educational areas to be strengthened included management of incidental findings (4.5 ± 0.6) and confident use of guidelines for nodule management (3.8 ± 1.8). Among essential competencies for professionals involved in LCS, the highest-rated were competence in managing incidental findings (4.7 ± 0.6), familiarity with guideline-based nodule management (4.7 ± 0.6), basic knowledge of AI tools (4.5 ± 0.8), and communication with LCS participants (4.5 ± 1.1).
conclusionThe findings suggest a heterogeneous LCS training landscape across European countries and underscore the importance of developing shared European curricula. Key priorities may include strengthening technical skills alongside structured communication training. KEY POINTS: Education and training of all stakeholders are essential for the successful implementation of LCS programmes. This survey assesses the current status of LCS training practices across Europe, identifies existing gaps, and defines key competencies to inform future curricula for health professionals involved in LCS. The European LCS training landscape is highly heterogeneous, with substantial variability in training activities, target professionals, and delivery modalities.
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.