The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Benefits and Harms of CT Screening for Lung Cancer: A Systematic Review
Open accessAbstract
CONTEXT: Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer death. Most patients are diagnosed with advanced disease, resulting in a very low 5-year survival. Screening may reduce the risk of death from lung cancer. OBJECTIVE: To conduct a systematic review of the evidence regarding the benefits and harms of lung cancer screening using low-dose computed tomography (LDCT). A multisociety collaborative initiative (involving the American Cancer Society, American College of Chest Physicians, American Society of Clinical Oncology, and National Comprehensive Cancer Network) was undertaken to create the foundation for development of an evidence-based clinical guideline. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE (Ovid: January 1996 to April 2012), EMBASE (Ovid: January 1996 to April 2012), and the Cochrane Library (April 2012). STUDY SELECTION: Of 591 citations identified and reviewed, 8 randomized trials and 13 cohort studies of LDCT screening met criteria for inclusion. Primary outcomes were lung cancer mortality and all-cause mortality, and secondary outcomes included nodule detection, invasive procedures, follow-up tests, and smoking cessation. DATA EXTRACTION: Critical appraisal using predefined criteria was conducted on individual studies and the overall body of evidence. Differences in data extracted by reviewers were adjudicated by consensus. RESULTS: Three randomized studies provided evidence on the effect of LDCT screening on lung cancer mortality, of which the National Lung Screening Trial was the most informative, demonstrating that among 53,454 participants enrolled, screening resulted in significantly fewer lung cancer deaths (356 vs 443 deaths; lung cancer−specific mortality, 274 vs 309 events per 100,000 person-years for LDCT and control groups, respectively; relative risk, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.73-0.93; absolute risk reduction, 0.33%; P = .004). The other 2 smaller studies showed no such benefit. In terms of potential harms of LDCT screening, across all trials and cohorts, approximately 20% of individuals in each round of screening had positive results requiring some degree of follow-up, while approximately 1% had lung cancer. There was marked heterogeneity in this finding and in the frequency of follow-up investigations, biopsies, and percentage of surgical procedures performed in patients with benign lesions. Major complications in those with benign conditions were rare. CONCLUSION: Low-dose computed tomography screening may benefit individuals at an increased risk for lung cancer, but uncertainty exists about the potential harms of screening and the generalizability of results.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Jemal, A., Siegel, R., Xu, J., & Ward, E. (2010) · CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians · doi:10.3322/caac.20073 · Cited by 12,596
Reduced Lung-Cancer Mortality with Low-Dose Computed Tomographic Screening
The National Lung Screening Trial Research Team (2011) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa1102873 · Cited by 11,064
Cited by
Overdiagnosis in Low-Dose Computed Tomography Screening for Lung Cancer
Patz, E. F., Pinsky, P., Gatsonis, C., Sicks, J. D., Kramer, B. S., Tammemägi, M. C., Chiles, C., Black, W. C., & Aberle, D. R. (2014) · JAMA Internal Medicine · doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2013.12738 · Cited by 776
European position statement on lung cancer screening
Oudkerk, M., Devaraj, A., Vliegenthart, R., Henzler, T., Prosch, H., Heussel, C. P., Bastarrika, G., Sverzellati, N., Mascalchi, M., Delorme, S., et al. (2017) · The Lancet Oncology · doi:10.1016/s1470-2045(17)30861-6 · Cited by 587
Nam, J. G., Park, S., Hwang, E. J., Lee, J. H., Jin, K.-N., Lim, K. Y., Vu, T. H., Sohn, J. H., Hwang, S., Goo, J. M., et al. (2019) · Radiology · doi:10.1148/radiol.2018180237 · Cited by 539
Lung Nodule Classification Using Deep Features in CT Images
Kumar, D., Wong, A., & Clausi, D. A. (2015) · 2015 12th Conference on Computer and Robot Vision · doi:10.1109/crv.2015.25 · Cited by 398
Mazzone, P. J., Silvestri, G. A., Patel, S., Kanne, J. P., Kinsinger, L. S., Wiener, R. S., Soo Hoo, G., & Detterbeck, F. C. (2018) · Chest · doi:10.1016/j.chest.2018.01.016 · Cited by 348
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Bach, P. B., Mirkin, J. N., Oliver, T. K., Azzoli, C. G., Berry, D. A., Brawley, O. W., Byers, T., Colditz, G. A., Gould, M. K., Jett, J. R., Sabichi, A. L., Smith-Bindman, R., Wood, D. E., Qaseem, A., & Detterbeck, F. C.
- Venue
- JAMA
- Publisher
- American Medical Association (AMA)
- Published
- 2012-06-13
- Volume
- 307
- Issue
- 22
- Pages
- 2418
- ISSN
- 0002-9955 (ISSN-L)
- 0098-7484
- OpenAlex
- W2120903075
- Cited by
- 1,244
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 98.42
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Benefits and Harms of CT Screening for Lung Cancer: A Systematic Review. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1001/jama.2012.5521
- The paper
- Bach, P. B., Mirkin, J. N., Oliver, T. K., Azzoli, C. G., Berry, D. A., Brawley, O. W., Byers, T., Colditz, G. A., Gould, M. K., Jett, J. R., Sabichi, A. L., Smith-Bindman, R., Wood, D. E., Qaseem, A., & Detterbeck, F. C. (2012). Benefits and Harms of CT Screening for Lung Cancer: A Systematic Review. JAMA. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2012.5521
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.